ORDER

12.02.2019 Heard Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel for the respondent.

The order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(M), Kamrup at Rangia in M.R. Case No.54/2016 directing the petitioner (husband) to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent(wife) has been put under challenge in the present proceeding. The aforesaid direction was apparently issued by the learned court below on an admission made by the petitioner to the effect that his monthly income is Rs.4000/-.

Mr. Das has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy reported in (2017) 14 SCC 200 to submit that following the principles laid down in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and another reported in 1970 (3) SCC 129, the Supreme Court has held that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be payable to the respondent(wife). Therefore, having regard to the materials available on record, the maintenance amount ought to have been Rs.1000/- being 25% of the sum of Rs.4000/-.

Mr. Sheeladitya, on the other hand, has strongly opposed the said submission by stating that there is finding recorded by the learned court below regarding existence of a shop and cultivable land belonging to the petitioner. As such, the fact that the petitioner has multiple sources of income is established on the fact of the record. Therefore, merely because the respondent has failed to adduce evidence to establish the quantum of his additional income, the order passed by the learned court below cannot be held to be unjustified.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and have gone through the materials available on record.

It is no doubt correct that the petitioner has taken a stand that he is an unemployed youth but somehow manages a monthly income of Rs.4000/-. The petitioner has, however, not disclosed the source of his income. The learned court below has categorically recorded in the impugned order dated

25.06.2018 that the DW-3 in his cross-examination has stated that the petitioner has a shop. The said evidence of the DW-3 would be binding on the petitioner and, therefore, has apparently been taken note by the Court below while issuing the direction for payment of maintenance. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner has additional source of income.

In this case the direction to pay maintenance is for a sum of Rs.2000/-

only, which is a meager amount when considered in the backdrop of present day cost of living. As such, considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety and the amount which has been directed to be paid to the respondent(wife) as maintenance, I am of the view that no case for interference with the impugned order is made out.

The decision in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury(supra) was rendered in a fact situation where the husband was earning a fixed salary with a known source of income, which is not the case in hand. In the present case, the true earning of the petitioner from all his source of income, is not known. As such, the ratio in the decision rendered in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury(supra), in the opinion of this Court, would have no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

For the reasons stated above, the Revision Petition is held to be without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant