M.M.PUNCHHI,J - (1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 21-11-1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, by which he reduced the maintenance allowance of the petitioners as granted to them by the trial Magistrate.
(2.) THE facts have been elaborated in the orders of the Courts below and need not be set out in detail here. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner, Suman Rani, and her minor son Varun Kumar, unable to maintain themselves, seek a suitable allowance of maintenance from Kapil Kumar, the husband of Suman Rani. The findings on the question of neglect and refusal are concurrent and also that the petitioners are entitled to maintenance. This part of the case is not disputed between the parties. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of maintenance. The allegation of the petitioners was that the respondent was running a Kiryana shop at Delhi and his monthly income was Rs. 2,500/-. This allegation was accepted as correct by the trial Magistrate and on that basis he awarded a sum of Rs. 200/- per mensem to Suman Rani and Rs. 100/- per mensem to Varun Kumar as maintenance. The plea of Kapil Kumar that he was only working as a helper in a motor mechanic shop and getting a salary of Rs. 150/- per mensem was rejected by the trial Magistrate. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, in revision took the view that there was no evidence to establish that Kapil Kumar was running a Kiryana shop and that the bore allegation of Suman Rani in that regard was not acceptable. On that premises, the basis for the awarding of maintenance at the afore referred to rates necessarily had to be up set. Yet the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept the statement of Kapil Kumar about his earning only Rs. 150/- per mensem as a helper in a mechanic shop. Discarding both sets of evidence with regard to the income of Kapil Kumar he awarded a sum of Rs. 100/- per mensem to Suman Rani and Rs. 50/- per mensem to Varun Kumar as maintenances.
(3.) PARTIES counsel have been heard. No infirmity could be pointed out in the manner in which the evidence regarding the earning capacity of Kapil Kumar has been judged. It is obviously a case of total lack of evidence one way or the other about the capacity of Kapil Kumar to earn. However, it cannot be forgotten that even an unskilled lablourer would fetch at least Rs. 20/- per day, if not more, and as admittedly Kapil Kumar is living in Delhi, he may even be fetching more. On that basis even the awarding of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per mensem to the wife and at the rate of Rs. 50/- per mensem to the minor boy stems to me too meagre. With near consent of learned counsel for the parties I deem it proper to enhance it to Rs. 150/- per mensem for the wife and Rs. 75/- per mensem for the minor son from the date of filing of the application for maintenance as was done by the trial Magistrate. To this extent the revision petition is accepted and the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, are modified.;