IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1375 of 2007 RITESH KUMAR Versus SMT.RASHMI KUMARI ----------- 3 5/9/2008 Heard the counsel for both the parties. The petitioner, who is an Inspector in the Central Excise, is aggrieved by the order dated 9.5.2007 passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act awarding Rs.5,000/- by way of interim maintenance and Rs. 15,000/- by way of cost of litigation. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the amount so awarded is wholly exorbitant and excessive taking into account the take home salary of the petitioner as shown in Annexure-1, the salary statement for the month of March, 2007 was Rs. 9,155/- only. This part of aforesaid attractive submission is however exposed to the brink on a closure analysis of salary statement 2 of the petitioner. It would be revealed that first of all the petitioner has been contributing Rs. 6,000/- per month in the provident fund. If that be so, as is said by the petitioner that the said investment is by way of his savings for his future. The requirement under law however is to deduct only 8.33% towards provident fund and thus anything beyond that is computable for calculating his income. A question would therefore also arise whether as to whether section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act envisages the deductions of all investment for computing and ascertaining income of an employee. Obviously an answer will be in negative. The petitioner, therefore, even from the salary statement for the month of March, 2007 and having a residential house of his own, as is admitted by him in his rejoinder filed in the court below, would be deemed to be recipient of a regular income around Rs. 14,000/- per month even after giving discount to the statutory deductions. That is infact also precisely a finding of the fact recorded by the 3 court below which was/is not controverted by any evidence led by the petitioner. There is also denial that there was one house of the petitioner on rent which was fetching rent of at least Rs. 3,000/- per month. The question, therefore, would be that when the wife, opposite party, who had stayed with the petitioner for at least seven years before filing of the matrimonial case by the husband-petitioner seeking divorce, could it be said that the amount of Rs.5,000/- can be said unreasonable or excessive. This Court thus on perusing the materials on records, would find now that the salary of the Central Government employee including the petitioner has also been considerably enhanced w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for maintenance his wife and one child out of the marriage. The wife of the petitioner is infact at least entitled for same status which she enjoyed before filing of the matrimonial case. That being so, this Court would not 4 find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil revision application being devoid of any merit is dismissed with a direction to court below to ensure that the amount of maintenance both arrear and current must be realized from the petitioner, if not already paid by him within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar