IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.520 of 2009 15 24.2.2010 Kalawati Devi wife of Sri Ram Pravesh Sao resident of village Rajoi, P.S. Aurangabad (M), District Aurangabad (Bihar) at preent resided C/0 Sri Jagdish Sao of village Bharaundha P.S. Simara (Risiup) District Aurangabad (Bihar) ...... Appellant VERSUS Sri Ram Pravesh Sao son of Udho Sao resident of village Rajoi, P.S. Aurangabad (M) District Aurangabad (Bihar) at present r/o Security Guard Inspector Nath Chirmini, P.O. Nath Chirmiri, District Sarguja (M.P.) ...... Respondent ------ Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the opposite party. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant, who is wife of the sole respondent that earlier the respondent had filed a suit for divorce which could not succeed and thereafter this appellant filed the present suit before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad bearing case no.10/97/123/97 for judicial separation and maintenance on account of cruelty in the behaviour of the husband who had forced the appellant to live in her parents’ house along with her two daughters. The parties are not contesting the decree for judicial separation as allowed by the order under appeal 2 dated 22nd August, 2008 but the dispute relates only to the quantum of maintenance which has been allowed at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. It is clear that the husband has been working as a security guard in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the appellant had no means of knowing the exact salary. Initially, she had claimed that her husband was getting Rs.800/- per month and on that basis she was allowed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. Pursuant to direction of this Court by order dated 6.8.2009, the respondent has annexed with his show cause a certificate by his employer disclosing that he is getting Rs.6000/- per month besides clothes. In course of arguments learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to an order of this Court dated 14.10.2003 passed in C.R.No.538 of 2002 wherein on the basis of salary of Rs.6000/- per month in the year 2003, the appellant was allowed an interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month by this Court. We are not only surprised but shocked to find that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, 3 Aurangabad has not applied his mind to the aforesaid relevant fact and has granted maintenance to the appellant, who is also required to maintain presently one unmarried daughter, only at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. The learned court below, after a lapse of about seven years from the order of this Court dated 14.10.2003, ought to have considered to enhance the maintenance from Rs.1500/- but instead, he has reduced it to an absurdly low figure. Hence, we accept the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the maintenance granted by the Family Court is too low and it must be enhanced so that the appellant can maintain herself and her unmarried daughter by meeting at least their basic need of food and clothing. In our view, the figure of per month salary given by the respondent appears to be based on a collusive certificate of the employer because salary could not have remained the same between the year 2003 and 2010. However, instead of prolonging this case for further inquiry in this regard, we deem it proper to allow maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month to meet the maintenance of both the appellant and her unmarried 4 daughter residing with her. The maintenance amount must be paid every month by 7th with effect from September 2008 i.e. month following next to the month in which the order under appeal was passed. In calculating the arrears of maintenance, amount already paid for the period in question may be adjusted. The arrears must be paid within a period of four months from today. It is made clear that after the unmarried daughter is married, the maintenance amount will be reduced to Rs.2000/- per month. The lower court records reveal that money has been invested by the respondent for marriage of her daughter. He will contribute the invested money for the marriage of the daughter, who remains to be married. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C. M. Prasad, J.) sk