IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.748 of 2008 ANITA SINHA Versus NEERAJ KUMAR ----------- 6. 16.12.2008 Heard Mr. Madan Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.D.Narayan, learned counsel for the husband- opposite party. Reference may be made to the order of this Court dated 23.9.2008 directing the opposite party to produce his latest salary statement. Pursuant thereto, the opposite party has filed his salary statement duly counter signed by Mr. M.P.Pathak, Drawing and Disbursing Officer of Vocational Rehabilitation Centre for Handicapped, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment,, which would go to show that the gross salary is Rs. 16,133/- whereas the deduction is of Rs. 8100/-, leaving the net salary in the hand of the opposite party to be Rs. 8033/- per month. It would, however, be also clear from the break up of deduction that Rs. 8000/- is being contributed by the petitioner in G.P.F., Rs. 5000/- towards 2 subscription and Rs. 3000/- towards repayment of loan of G.P.F. The statutory requirement for deposit in provident fund is Rs. 8.33% of the monthly salary and therefore, any amount of deduction in provident fund beyond 8.33% is definitely the saving of the employee concerned including that of the husband opposite party. Proceeding on that basis this Court is of the opinion that the deductions for computing in the monthly income of the husband opposite party would still leave him an amount of Rs. 14,500/-. Further this salary would also require payment of income tax which has not been deducted and therefore, even if the permissible deduction of income tax is allowed the family still will be left with an income of Rs. 13,500/- per month. Mr. Narayan submits that in this amount a sum of Rs. 928/- being travelling allowance should be discounted because this has to be spent by the opposite party for the purpose of doing his official duty. Under the peculiar facts even if this amount is deducted it will still leave the husband opposite party 3 of a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month. Now if there being no doubt that the family is only of three persons, namely, the husband opposite party, wife petitioner and their only son. In such situation the courts consistently apportionating the amount have held that the employee must be given two shares and the rest of them must be entitled for one share each. Applying that principle this Court would find that the petitioner and her son are still entitled for a sum of Rs. 3000/- each. That being so, this Court would direct the husband opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 6000/- from the month of December, 2008 leaving the arrears to be paid at the rate as decided by the impugned order. At this stage counsel for the husband opposite party would point out that the matrimonial suit is pending since 2007 and that the evidence of the husband opposite party has already been completed. If that be so, the matrimonial case can itself be disposed of and accordingly, this Court would direct the court below to 4 dispose of the matrimonial case within a period of six months from the date the wife petitioner would complete her evidence. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/