IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1140 of 2011 Amit Shekhar . Versus Mrs.Ranjana . For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Das For the respondent : Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, Advocate ----------- 4/ 17.10.2011 The petitioner has filed this writ application against the order dated 10.12.2009, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial case no. 757 of 2008, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna directed him to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to opposite party / respondent towards the maintenance by 7th day of subsequent month from 04.06.2009 and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as a lump sum amount towards the cost of litigation. Opposite party has appeared in this case and filed counter affidavit. The petitioner has also filed supplementary affidavit in this case. The petitioner submits that there was no basis for the learned trial court to come to the conclusion that he was getting regular monthly income of Rs.20,000/- from his internship. The petitioner submits that neither the post retirement benefit of his father nor the salary of his mother can be clubbed for assessing the income of the petitioner for the purposes of paying maintenance to the opposite party/respondent. The petitioner submits that he is not getting any stipend by way of internship, as the institution is private. He further submits that house in Vyas Nagar, Block-B, Ashiana Nagar Road is personal 2 acquisition of his father and he cannot make any claim to the same in his life time. On the other hand, Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. He submits that the marriage card would show that at the time of marriage in the year 2007, the petitioner had projected himself as full fledged doctor. He further submits that letter dated 28.01.2010 written by the Principal of Kempegowda Iinstitute of Physiotherapy, Bangalore does not appear to be a genuine document. He states that State Health Council Bihar, Family Welfare Department, Sheikhpura, Patna to which the letter is addressed is a non-existing institution. He submits that Apex Court in a case reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385 has observed that the power under writ jurisdiction in nature and this Court would refrain from appraising the evidence. I have heard the counsel for the parties. In an application for maintenance filed by the wife, the income of her husband would form the basis for fixing maintenance. I find that the trial court observed that the petitioner was earning about Rs.20,000/- from internship. No cheat of paper has been filed to show that the petitioner was earning the aforesaid amount. The petitioner on the other hand has stated that he is a mere consultant and does not get any stipend by way of internship. The petitioner submits that he hardly earns a bare minimum to support himself. In view of 3 above, I find that the amount fixed as maintenance is excessive based on no concrete documents and the same is reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month from Rs.5,000/- per month till the decision of the suit. The petitioner must pay the maintenance amount by 7th of subsequent month. The petitioner would however, pay the lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- as fixed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna towards the cost of litigation forthwith. With the aforesaid modification in the order of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, this application stands disposed of. Uday/ ( Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)