Point of law: Grant of maintenance - rise of cost of living and also taking into account that the girl child was born in the year 2004 and as of now is about 16 years of age and is of the age of a school going child and also taking into consideration the salary of the revisionist which keeps on increasing every year by means of dearness allowance, increment etc. cannot be ignored.

JUDGMENT :

Samit Gopal, J.

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Chaurasia, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ashwini Prakash Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. As per the office report dated 21.08.2017, the lower court records which were summoned are tagged with the present revision, which have also been perused.

2. The present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Family Court, Gorakhpur in Case No. 62 of 2005 (Smt. Sarika Vs. Shri Praveen Srivastava) by which the wife of the revisionist has been directed to be paid Rs. 10,000/-and Kumari Bhumika Srivastava, the daughter of the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 has been directed to be paid Rs. 5,000/-from the date of the order which will be effective from May, 2016 as maintenance.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the order impugned is bad in law as the opposite party no.2 was living in adultery and the child born from her is not from his contact and the paternity of the said child is seriously disputed. It is further argued that the marriage of the revisionist with the opposite party no.2 took place on 16.05.2003 and the gavna (second marriage) took place on 17.05.2003 and the girl child was born on 28.01.2004 in a normal delivery which is after 8 months and 11 days of marriage and as such is evident that the said child is not born out of the wedlock of the revisionist and the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel has then argued vehemently that the quantum of maintenance as awarded being Rs. 10,000/-per month to the wife and Rs. 5,000/-per month to the daughter is quite excessive looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the fact that the revisionist is drawing a salary of Rs. 15,000/-per month only. Learned counsel confines his argument primarily to the quantum of maintenance as awarded to the wife and the daughter and then argues that looking to the fact that the wife was living in adultery and the girl child was not born out of his wedlock, the same be reduced.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and argued that the order impugned is an order passed after considering the entire evidence on record. It is argued that the question of the wife living in adultery and paternity of the girl child being disputed by the revisionist has been dealt with elaborately by the court concerned in the impugned judgment and after meticulously dealing with the same, a specific finding has been returned by the court concerned that the girl child has been born out of the wedlock of the revisionist and the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel has further argued that in so far as the quantum of the maintenance as awarded is concerned, the statement of the revisionist that he was getting a salary of Rs. 15,000/-per month, is negated from the salary slip filed before the Court below which was of the year 2016, in which, he was shown to be getting a salary of Rs. 42,814/- out of which Rs. 2,628/- were the necessary deductions and then he was getting a salary of Rs. 40,186/-. It is argued that the court below as on the question of salary also given a specific finding that the evidence on record being the documents and the statements

as recorded before it clearly show that the revisionist has tried to conceal the same and has spoken a lie.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and others : (2015) 6 SCC 353 has held that wife is also entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. It is further held that the husband cannot deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Para 2 of the judgment is as follows:

“2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguis