- (1.) The Judgment of the Court was as follows : The petitioner has assailed the impugned order of maintenance directing payment of Rs.4,500/- per month to the opposite party/wife and Rs. 4,000/- to her minor daughter.
(2.) Mr . Banerjee,2000 CalCriLR 179 learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his salary is around Rs. 19,000/- and that the quantum of maintenance is disproportionately high. He relies upon a decision. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the opposite party/wife submits that the petitioner has no other liability. He further submits that it would be evident from the pay slip that on a six monthly basis; the basic pay of the petitioner is increased by about Rs.600/-, this fact, however, is disputed by Mr. Banerjee. Mr. Chowdhury further submits that the minor daughter of the petitioner is studying in Class IX and any reduction of maintenance would be harmful for her education and wellbeing. He further submits that if the petitioner is in a position to provide support of around Rs.600/- to his brothers and sisters, as admitted by him in his evidence, it would be unjust to permit a reduction of maintenance as granted by the learned Magistrate.
(3.) Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the impugned order of maintenance and the pay slips annexed to the revisional application, I am of the considered view that the quantum of maintenance which has been fixed in the instant case cannot be said to be so excessive as to persuade me to substitute the discretion of the learned Magistrate by my own in revisional jurisdiction.;