IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1462 of 2007 MD.SHABBIR @ MD.SABIR Versus ARFA JAMAL ----------- 3 1/9/2008 Heard Mr. Washi Akhtar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vijoy Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. In the opinion of this Court when finding with regard to income of the petitioner was based on his salary statement and the salary said to be drawn by him admittedly being gross earning of Rs.15,232/- after deduction of Rs. 1245/- came to Rs. 14,000/- approximately there was no rationale or justification for the Court to fix an amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month. In that view of the matter, the amount of Rs. 8,000/- by way of monthly maintenance cannot be sustained. At this stage, counsel for the opposite party explaining the hardships of the opposite party, a law student, would submit that she would be satisfied if a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to her by way of maintenance. Mr. Washi Akhtar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, would not give his consent for the sum of Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance per month on the ground that this amount would excessive taking into account that the amount of take home salary of petitioner, in the month of November, 2006, was only Rs. 14000/-. This Court would not go into comparative evaluation on the point of income when it is 2 absolutely clear that the petitioner is in employment of a Company named as TeamLease Services PVT. LTD. and that his gross salary was Rs. 15,232/- for the month of November, 2006. Added to it even when the petitioner wanted to project before this Court his liability towards his parents, he could not satisfactorily explain the income of his parents from two houses and four shops in the Muzaffarpur town which is a source for their income. Thus the submission that the petitioner has to maintain his parents from his salary is to be noticed by this court for its being rejected. In that view of the matter, whatever earning is of the petitioner by way of his salary has to be normally shared between the petitioner and his wife. Thus even the petitioner is directed to pay of 1/3rd of his salary, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- would become payable, in view of salary of the petitioner being in the vicinity of Rs. 15,000/-. Thus the sum of Rs. 5000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or illegal. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent that in place of Rs. 8,000/- now the petitioner will be required to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance. Such payment will however be made from the date of the impugned order. Counsel for the opposite party would submit that for the last two years the petitioner despite order of the court for initial payment of 3 Rs.4,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance (now enhanced to Rs. 5000/- per month)has not paid any amount to the wife opposite party. If that be so, this court would direct the petitioner to pay both arrear and current amount to the wife opposite party within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order along with interest @ 8% per annum on the arrears from the date of entitlement till the date of its payment by the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar