- 1 - IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA 310 of 2005. Date of decision September 1, 2009. Smt. Sheela Devi … Appellant. Versus Sh. Sohan Lal …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This appeal has been preferred by the wife against the respondent husband challenging the quantum of maintenance granted to her under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as the Act). The appellant filed a suit for maintenance under Section 18 of the Act pleading that she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent, that he had wrongfully turned her out of the matrimonial home and refused to maintain 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - her. The case set up by the appellant is that they had four children from their subsisting marriage. Somewhere in September, 2000 it was alleged that he had developed illicit relationship with one Smt. Ugma, who was a widow living in the village and working in the Irrigation and Public Health Department where the respondent was posted. At the relevant time, he was posted as a clerk in the office of the Tehsildar, Nirmond. On the settled issue, that is as to whether the appellant was entitled for maintenance on the ground as pleaded, the learned Court held that the respondent husband had wrongfully refused to maintain the appellant and awarded maintenance @ Rs.800/- per month with effect from 2.1.2002. In reaching this conclusion, the learned Court considered the evidence on record of the plaintiff, PW-2 Shri Bhagat Ram, son of Tholu Ram and PW-3 Shri Bhagat Ram son of Sh. Khimi Ram and PW-4 Shri Shyam Lal who supported her case that she had been neglected by the respondent. Respondent appeared as DW-1 and refuted the contentions/ allegations made by the appellant. - 3 - The learned Court found that the allegations of illicit relationship with Smt. Ugma had not been proved on record but that his income was Rs.8000/- per month. The Court, therefore, proceeded to award Rs.800/- per month as maintenance to the appellant. This appeal was instituted in the year 2005 and is now being taken up for consideration after a period of four years. It is undisputed that with the revision in pay scales, the salary of the respondent has gone up. Rs.800/- is too meager an amount for sustenance of life. The learned trial Court should have taken into consideration not only the income of the husband but the level of comfort for a decent living for which the quantum of maintenance is required to be fixed. From the record I find that the quantum of maintenance requires to be increased to enable the respondent to lead a decent life. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering especially that the respondent has agricultural land, I direct that a sum of Rs.1500/- per month be paid by the respondent to the appellant wife on and with effect from - 4 - 1.9.2009. This appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. September 1, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.