Monthly income of a normal person should be minimum Rs3,000: HC
NAGPUR: About two years ago, India's Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia invited controversy for his affidavit in the Supreme Court that a citizen with consumption of up to Rs32 per day would be considered poor in urban areas, while it was Rs26 in the rural areas.
Now, even Bombay High Court has endorsed the fact that a person can't live in meagre daily income of Rs50-Rs60 per day while rejecting a petition by a man who had expressed his inability to pay Rs900 per month alimony to his wife and Rs300 each to his two kids.
A single-judge bench of Justice Abhay Thipsay at Aurangabad upheld the session court's order that monthly income of a normal person should be minimum Rs3,000. "It is not the case of the petitioner that he is suffering from any bodily infirmity, sickness or disability. Therefore, if the courts have taken monthly income of an able bodied person as Rs3,000 per month, they have not committed any error whatsoever," the court ruled.
Sunil and Anita entered into wedlock and had two kids, but soon trouble started between them and they separated. The wife applied for maintenance for herself and two children as per provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The magistrate, after conducting an inquiry, directed the husband to pay Rs900 per month to her and Rs300 each to the children.
Sunil challenged this order in the session court by filing a revision application, but the additional judge dismissed it while imposing a cost of Rs1,000. He then moved to the high court challenging the quantum of the maintenance awarded by the magistrate and confirmed by the sessions court. He contended that his daily income was just about Rs50 to Rs60 and was unable to get daily work. Still, the magistrate and the sessions judge considered his daily income to be Rs100 per day while asking him to pay Rs900 to wife.
Justice Thipsay observed that he hasn't found any substance in the husband's contentions. "In the first place, the orders under CrPC, do not purport to decide the civil rights of the parties. The object of the relevant provisions is to prevent vagrancy and destitution by providing a speedy remedy to neglected wives and children. Therefore, a superior court would not interfere with the discretion exercised by the magistrate with respect to the quantum of maintenance ordinarily," he said.
"In any case, no interference with respect to the quantum of maintenance is called for, particularly when the amount of maintenance as fixed by the magistrate appears to be the bare minimum, as would be required for sustenance," the judge ruled before dismissing the plea.
No comments:
Post a Comment