Parmanand vs Smt. Pallavi Nagar
2023 Latest Caselaw 13277 MP

                                                                1
                            IN      THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                                 ON THE 16 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                                MISC. PETITION No. 1152 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          PARMANAND S/O SHRI SHIVPRASAD NAGAR, AGED
                          ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TEACHER IN THE
                          GOVERNMENT    SCHOOL   RAJNAGAR   DISTRICT-
                          CHHATARPUR RAJNAGAR DISTRICT- CHHATARPUR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI BHUVNESH SHARMA - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          SMT. PALLAVI NAGAR W/O PARMANAND NAGAR D/O
                          SHRI MALKHAN SINGH NAGAR, AGED ABOUT 32
                          YE A R S , VILLAGE CHHATARPUR MOHALLA DAIRY
                          PAHADI NEAR MARIYAM MATA CHHATARPUR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI VISHNU KUMAR PATEL - ADVOCATE)

                                  This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

                          following:
                                                                ORDER

With consent, finally heard.

2. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is mounted on the order dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure P/6) whereby the application preferred by respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed by Court below and petitioner is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance and in addition to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARITOSH KUMAR Signing time: 8/17/2023 4:14:17 PM

3. Shri Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed his last Pay Certificate (Annexure P/5) which shows that his grand total salary was Rs.48,322/-. Petitioner is taking care of his three daughters. In addition, petitioner has taken a loan and statement of account (Annexure P/4) shows that petitioner is required to pay some amount for repayment of loan. The Court below without determining the pay of the petitioner has abruptly directed the petitioner to pay the said amount towards maintenance which is bad in law. He placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (Civil Appeal No.5369 of 2017) decided on April 19, 2017 to

bolster his submission that 25% of husband's net salary can be awarded as maintenance to the respondent-wife.

4. In order to apply that formula, first thing required to be done was to determine the salary of petitioner which has not been determined by the Court below.

5. Sounding a contra note, Shri Vishnu Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.

6. No other point is pressed by the parties.

7. A microscopic reading of the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 shows that parties were at loggerheads on the question of actual amount of salary received by petitioner. The respondent-wife stated that petitioner being a Government employee is receiving Rs.62,000/- as salary whereas petitioner, as noticed above, stated that his grand total salary is Rs.48,332/-. In support thereof, petitioner also files salary slip. I find substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Court below should have given some

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARITOSH KUMAR Signing time: 8/17/2023 4:14:17 PM

finding as to what is the amount which is being received by the petitioner as salary and thereafter, could have applied the relevant formula and could have determined the amount of maintenance. In absence thereof, the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 became vulnerable. Putting it differently, the Court below has not given any finding about the income of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 is set aside. The Court below shall re-hear the parties on the above application and pass a fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of production of copy of this order.

8. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

9. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE PK

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARITOSH KUMAR Signing time: 8/17/2023 4:14:17 PM