Back
1993 Supreme(SC) 1215
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Ratnavel Pandian and R.M. Sahai, JJ.
Jayanta Kumar Laha - Petitioner
Versus
Kabita Laha (Smt.) - Respondent
I.A. No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 4382 of 1993
Decided On : 26-11-1993
For the Petitioner:Mr. T.N. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A. Bhattacharya, Advocate
In determining maintenance, the court considers the needs of the dependents and the financial capacity of the spouse providing maintenance.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - The court found the maintenance amount of Rs 600 to be grossly inadequate and increased it to Rs 1600 per month, taking into consideration the husband's gross salary and the needs of the wife and minor son.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was receiving Rs 600 per month as maintenance for herself and her minor son. She argued that this amount was insufficient for their maintenance and education.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the maintenance of Rs 600 to be grossly inadequate and increased it to Rs 1600 per month, with the husband directed to pay Rs 1000 per month in addition to the existing amount.
Issues: Inadequacy of maintenance amount and the husband's gross salary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the husband's gross salary and the needs of the wife and minor son in determining the maintenance amount.
Final Decision: The court increased the maintenance amount to Rs 1600 per month, with the husband directed to pay Rs 1000 per month in addition to the existing amount.
ORDER :
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.
1. Having heard both the learned counsel and perused the records, we pass the following order:
2. Admittedly the applicant Smt Kabita Laha is getting a sum of Rs 600 towards the maintenance for herself and on behalf of her minor son pursuant to an order in a proceeding instituted under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. According to the learned counsel for the applicant that this sum is very meagre and insufficient to maintain both of them and also to educate the minor son aged about 15 years studying in 9th standard and that the husband-respondent’s gross salary comes to Rs 5388.
4. The counsel for the respondent has not challenged the gross income of the respondent. Taking that fact into consideration and finding that the maintenance of Rs 600 is grossly inadequate, we fix the maintenance at a total sum of Rs 1600 per mensem that is to say that the respondent-husband is directed to pay Rs 1000 per mensem over and above the sum of Rs 600 fixed by the criminal court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order is to take effect from today. The plea of the applicant-wife requesting for a direction of payment of money towards the expense of this litigation will be decided at the final hearing of this case.
5. I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
