Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties, it transpires that the impugned order dated 13.3.2015 rendered by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, has been challenged primarily on two folds. The first one being that the opinion has been countenanced in the impugned judgment holding as if Mr. Siddhartha Ahluwalia has entered into the second marriage with Ms. Ritu Gupta, ignoring the fact that ex parte divorce decree dated 17.9.2011 was set aside/recalled by the same Court on 6.11.2012, on moving application by Smt. Manisha Bhaskar Ahluwalia (first legally wedded wife) on 1.11.2011, in this regard.

2. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in disregard of the waiting period, as contemplated under the Hindu Marriage Act for preferring an appeal, the respondent allegedly entered into the second marriage with Ms. Ritu Gupta, and so the validity of the subsequent marriage is still subjudice and being disputed, but the observation of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, as made in the impugned order, gives a reflection as if the respondent has entered into a legally wedded 2

marriage with Ms. Ritu Gupta. This Court feels that the learned Principal Judge must have avoided in making any such observation or even perception, surfacing his views in this regard, which he could not do. So, the judgment, under challenge, vitiates on this score.

3. The second fold of challenge is as regards the maintenance, wherefor the learned Principal Judge had to take a rational view, of course, considering 1/4th deduction from the total salary of Mr. Siddhartha Ahluwalia (who now has been promoted as the Lt. Col. from the post of Major), towards the maintenance of his minor daughter Ms. Pavni, born out of the wedlock of petitioner and respondent herein.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner moved an application before the concerned Army authorities seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter, which was rejected by the competent authority under the relevant Army Rules, on the premise that she was serving in an Army School and earning almost Rs.11,000/- per mensem, but at the same time, the authority sanctioned 1/4th of the total monthly salary of the Army Officer towards the maintenance of child Ms. Pawani, and thus, petitioner is getting total monthly sum of Rs.31,685/-, the breakup whereof is (a) 25 percent of total salary, plus (b) certain installments of total arrears which had been due to be paid from the salary of Mr. Siddhartha Ahluwalia. On this score, learned Principal Judge, as I feel, has gone wrong while evaluating the salary of husband, after deducting a sum of Rs.16,579/- as debit in sundry scores, because a person, in order to minimize the grant of amount towards maintenance, may mull to make deductions on various scores, which, at times, may not be so necessary, albeit the deduction towards income tax has rightly been considered. Thereafter, the Court below has made 1/3rd deduction from the respondent’s monthly salary of Rs.70,000/- which comes to Rs.23,300/. Out of this sum, an amount of Rs.10,500/- (monthly salary of petitioner from Army School) has been deducted and then, further adjustment of amount, which the petitioner is getting towards the maintenance and suitable education of her daughter, has been permitted.

5. The Court feels that if this all is permitted to happen, then Mr. Siddhartha Ahluwalia will not be needed to pay even a single penny towards the maintenance of his wife-petitioner. So, the finding of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, is vitiated on this score too.

6. All told, this Court feels that the impugned judgment is wholly misconceived and is liable to be quashed. I order accordingly and at the same time, the matter is remitted back to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, who soon will transfer the case to the Additional Judge, Family Court, where the maintenance applica