IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2478 of 2007 ARUN KUMAR SINGH Versus SMT. MANJU DEVI ----------- 11 1.07.2008 Heard Mr. A.B. Ojha, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.M. Nematullah and Mr. M.A. Rahman counsels for the opposite party. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28.9.2007 whereby and whereunder the Court below has fixed the amount of monthly maintenance enhancing the earlier amount from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 5000/- per month. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforementioned order is bad for two counts namely that when in the year, 1999 the Court below had granted maintenance for three of them namely wife and two minor children at that point of time at the rate of Rs.500/- per head, how could the present order be justified when admittedly the liability now of the petitioner is confined only two, one wife and one minor son because in between 1990 to this day atleast one his son has became major and thus not entitled to receive monthly maintenance from the petitioner. Counsel would, therefore, also contend that virtually a sum of Rs. 1000/- - 2 - which was a liability of the petitioner prior to the impugned order got enhanced to Rs. 5000/- by its five fold increase. Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand in the light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit, has submitted that when in the year, 1999, the order was passed, the two children were school going children but today even this younger son has already appeared in the matriculation examination and another is a college going student. He has further submitted that while the petitioner is getting his enhanced salary as against the earlier amount that he was drawing in 1999, the requirement of the opposite party, wife and the minor child have also increased and, therefore, the order which has been passed by the Court below under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be faulted in any manner. Counsel for the petitioner in reply, submits that it is true that the price index has gone high as against 1999 but then he emphasizes that even the liabilities of the petitioner has increased inasmuch as he has now solemnised a second marriage and from that - 3 - marriage he has got three issues. He further submits that he has to also spend a substantial amount for his aged parents and, therefore, the sum of Rs. 5000/- which now he would be required to shell out by way of payment to opposite party, wife and the minor son, is a wholly excessive. Considering the fact that the petitioners total emolument comes to Rs. 14384/- per month as has been stated in the letter of Superintendent of Police, Samastipur dated 17.6.2008 giving the complete break up of his salary and the deduction from his salary being confined to Rs. 500/- and 30 per month only, the amount to Rs. 5000/- fixed by the Court below by way of maintenance for the wife and one minor son cannot be said to be excessive in view of the fact that the take home salary of the petitioner comes to Rs. 14384/ - 530/- = Rs.13854/-. The petitioner cannot be heard to evoke the equity by taking of plea of his second marriage and issues out of the same during the subsistence of his first marriage and therefore, the first wife and the child cannot - 4 - be allowed to suffer on such count. As a matter of fact, it is well settled principle of law that one who seeks equity must do equity. That apart the petitioner cannot lose sight of the fact that in the year, 1999 what amount was found payable by the petitioner was in the backdrop of a finding of the Court below that the salary of the petitioner then was Rs. 7000/- and at that point of time when the Court below had granted a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month for maintenance of the opposite party and two minor children, its being increased under the present price index cannot be questioned by him as now the requirement of the family of opposite party including the minor son has also increased. Be that it may, this Court would find no any error in the impugned order of the Court below and accordingly this Civil Revision application is dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)