IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.122 of 2007 HAREN KUMAR SHARMA Versus BASANTI SHARMA ----------- 7 05.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the other side. This Court, in order to find out the quantum of maintenance as directed to be paid by the impugned order, had issued notice to the wife-opposite party. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he has produced the new pay fixation statement before this Court pursuant to the Sixth Pay Revision which has come into force with effect from 01.01.2006 and has to be implemented on 01.09.2008. From the salary statement of the petitioner for the month of November, 2008 it would be clear that the gross salary of the petitioner comes to Rs. 25062/- and the take home salary is 14479/- . Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in such deduction the amount of B.P.F. of Rs. 6000/- and the amount being paid to the wife-opposite party is Rs.3000/- cannot be taken into consideration towards the net salary. That would mean that the petitioner has still an income of around Rs. 23,000/- per month by way of net salary after allowing statutory deduction. In that view of the matter, if the principle laid down by the Delhi High Court and affirmed by the Apex Court of dividing the amount of salary /income for the - 2 - grant of maintenance in to shares is applied and the husband is given two shares leaving one share each for the two children one for the wife, one share for the wife out of second marriage and one more share for the mother, still the 1/7th share will go to the first wife on whose maintenance the issue of quantum has been raised. This Court would find that even then a sum of Rs. 3000/- will be well within 1/7th of the net income of the petitioner. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 3000/- as awarded by the Court below in the impugned order can not be interfered. Counsel for the petitioner however has a valid point that in addition to Rs. 3000/- the petitioner is being also subjected to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per month in terms of order passed by the Court below in a criminal proceeding under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court would accordingly direct that henceforth the petitioner will be required to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 3000/- per month to the wife opposite party. In other words the petitioner will not pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party and not a sum of Rs. 3300/- per month from the month of January 2009 onwards. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)