Shivani Chattopadhyaya Vs. Siddarth Chattopadhyaya
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4288 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) 10273 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) 10273 of 1999)
Petitioner: Shivani Chattopadhyaya
Respondent: Siddarth Chattopadhyaya
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4288 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) 10273 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) 10273 of 1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 28, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 12.5 – Maintenance – High Court fixing at Rs. 3500 – Respondent, a DIG – Claim of Rs. 10,000 made – Dispute as regards income. Held that interim maintenance is fixed at Rs. 6000 from 1.7.2000. Final amount to be fixed by High Court after looking into all aspects.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We do not think it necessary to go into the details of the dispute. Suffice it, if we fix an amount as provisional arrangement by way of interim maintenance.
3. The High Court fixed up a sum of Rs. 3,500/- and we have no doubt that it is far too low. Learned Counsel for the appellant claims that at least a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- should be granted by way of interim maintenance as she has not only to maintain herself but to bring up the only child in the standard in which the child of a D.I.G. has to be brought up. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the entire amount which he gets is by way of salary only and the take off amount cannot exceed Rs. 16, 000/-. This is disputed by saying that the respondent is getting other income by way of house rent, etc. We permit the appellant to prove all such facts for a decision at the final stage when the Court will be in a position to fix the sum which will, in the circumstances be reasonable to be given by way of maintenance to the wife/appellant and the child. At present, we deem it sufficient to fix a sum of Rs. 6, 000/- as interim maintenance in place of Rs. 3, 500/-. This enhancement will work from 1st July, 2000. We make it clear that the High Court shall not, in any way, be influenced by that amount in fixation of the sum at the final stage as we are not fully in possession of the materials and the documents to ascertain the exact amount of income of the respondent. Hence, when final amount is fixed, the High Court will certainly look into all other aspects of the matter.
4. Ordered accordingly.
5. This appeal is disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. We do not think it necessary to go into the details of the dispute. Suffice it, if we fix an amount as provisional arrangement by way of interim maintenance.
3. The High Court fixed up a sum of Rs. 3,500/- and we have no doubt that it is far too low. Learned Counsel for the appellant claims that at least a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- should be granted by way of interim maintenance as she has not only to maintain herself but to bring up the only child in the standard in which the child of a D.I.G. has to be brought up. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the entire amount which he gets is by way of salary only and the take off amount cannot exceed Rs. 16, 000/-. This is disputed by saying that the respondent is getting other income by way of house rent, etc. We permit the appellant to prove all such facts for a decision at the final stage when the Court will be in a position to fix the sum which will, in the circumstances be reasonable to be given by way of maintenance to the wife/appellant and the child. At present, we deem it sufficient to fix a sum of Rs. 6, 000/- as interim maintenance in place of Rs. 3, 500/-. This enhancement will work from 1st July, 2000. We make it clear that the High Court shall not, in any way, be influenced by that amount in fixation of the sum at the final stage as we are not fully in possession of the materials and the documents to ascertain the exact amount of income of the respondent. Hence, when final amount is fixed, the High Court will certainly look into all other aspects of the matter.
4. Ordered accordingly.
5. This appeal is disposed of.
