IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 316 of 2010 Punit Pathak S/o Shri P.N. Pathak R/o House No. 5-B, Ambika Vihar, Post Office Bhotia Parao, Haldwani, District Nainital. ...…………. Appellant Versus Smt. Sweta Pathak W/o Shri Punit Pathak D/o Shri P.K. Bhardwaj R/o E.W.S. 169, Awas Vikas Colony, Haldwani, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital. ...…………. Respondent Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate, present for the appellant. Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate, present for the respondent. Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble V. K. Bist, J. Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 13.05.2010, passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital, whereby said court has directed the appellant (husband) to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 6,000/- 2 per month to his wife (respondent) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that admittedly the appellant and respondent are husband and wife. They are in litigation before the trial court on the petition filed by the husband under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which the respondent moved an application under Section 24 of said Act. 4) It is not disputed between the parties that the appellant is serving with Indian Air Force in the Central Accounts Office at Coimbatore. It is also not disputed that the wife is not an earning member. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that pay of appellant is ` 9,480/- per month, and ` 6,000/- per month as maintenance is excessive. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant has tried to conceal dearness allowance and other allowances, admissible with the pay in the form of salary to the appellant. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that salary of the appellant is not less than ` 20,000/- per month. 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that ` 5,000/- per month would be the just and proper amount of 3 maintenance and the appellant should have been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 5,000/- per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to his wife during the pendency of petition under Section 10 of the Act, before the trial court. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with the direction that the appellant shall pay to the respondent maintenance at the rate of ` 5,000/- per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the date trial court has awarded the maintenance. The impugned order dated 13.05.2010, passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Suit No. 152 of 2009, stands modified. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 24, 2011. H. Negi