SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ku. Pragati Balla vs Rajendra Kumar Balla on 22 February, 2018

1 F.A.223/2016



(First Appeal No.223/2016)

Ku. Pragati Bhalla
Rajendra Kumar Bhalla

Shri Indar Singh Asthana, learned counsel for
the appellant.
Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for



Per Ashok Kumar Joshi, J. –

Appellant has filed this first appeal under Section
19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the final order
dated 28.09.2016 passed by Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gwalior in Case No.168-A/2015, which was
filed under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956 for enhancement of the
maintenance amount fixed by family Court. The above-
mentioned Court has ordered against the present
respondent to pay the maintenance to the present
appellant at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month till her
marriage or getting employment or starting earning
2 F.A.223/2016

whichever occurs earlier.

2. Undisputedly appellant is daughter of respondent.

3. Undisputed facts are that the present
appellant/original petitioner-Ku. Pragati Bhalla, daughter
of respondent-Rajendra Kumar Bhalla, who is presently
residing with her mother-Smt. Jyoti Bhalla at Gwalior.
Respondent-Rajendra Kumar Bhalla is working as Jr.
Engineer in D.R.M. Office of Western Railway at Ratlam,
(M.P.) and previously an application filed by appellant’s
mother by order dated 01.08.2008 passed in Criminal MJC
No.229/2007, present respondent was ordered to pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per months to the
present appellant.

4. Present appellant filed an application under Section
20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act on
15.05.2005, on pleadings that she is daughter of
respondent and at that time she was studying in B.E.
(Computer Science) in ITM University, Gwalior, whose one
year fee, conveyance, coaching, books and other expenses
are about Rs.1,25,000/- and as respondent is working as
Jr. Engineer under Western Railway, drawing monthly pay
at the rate 65,000/- per month and petitioner is only sole
daughter, hence respondent is competent to pay
maintenance amount to the petitioner. In total Rs.20,000/-
per month as a maintenance for the petitioner and her
expenses of studying were claimed.

5. Present respondent in his pleadings filed before the
family Court, despite above-mentioned admitted facts
pleaded that petitioner is an educated and is herself
earning about Rs.20,000/- per month from coaching and
tuition work and is also receiving maintenance at the rate
of Rs.1500/- per month from her father as ordered by this
3 F.A.223/2016

Court in case No.168/2002. Respondent’s monthly pay is
not 65,000/- per month, but is only Rs.24,000/- per
months and he is paying monthly rent at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- per month for residence and his mother is also
dependent on him. Respondent is also paying Rs.6,000/-
per month to employees working at his residence.
Respondent’s both eyes have been operated and presently
he is not having proper vision and hence, travels through
auto and under this head he has to additionally pay
Rs.5,000/- per month and he is also paying income tax.
He is not competent to pay maintenance to the petitioner
at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month, hence, dismissal of
petitioner’s application was prayed.

6. The relating family Court framed issues and recorded
evidence of both the parties. Before trial Court only
appellant-Ku. Pragati Bhalla (PW-1) and respondent

-R.K.Bhalla (DW-1) were examined as witnesses.

7. The family Court placing reliance on Ex.P-4, which
was respondent’s pay slip, obtained by the appellant under
Right to Information Act, held that in the month of
August, 2015 respondent’s monthly pay was Rs.55,848/-
and, thereafter, recommendations of Seventh Pay
Commission have been enforced, therefore, respondent’s
monthly income would have been increased and at that
time, petitioner was studying in last Semester of B.E.
(Computer Science) and, thereafter, completed her
degree, but appellant is desirous to take admission in MBA
Course and if she got admission, then she had to bear its
fee, conveyance and other relating expenses, hence,
respondent was ordered to pay the petitioner at the rate of
Rs.4,000/- per month for maintenance, till her marriage or
her obtaining service or starting earning, whichever
4 F.A.223/2016

happens earlier and it was also ordered that if in future
petitioner take admission in MBA or any other course, then
its fee and expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
it was proved that respondent was having monthly income
of Rs.55,848/- and appellant is the only daughter of
respondent and is presently having no income and
desirous for further study, hence, it is prayed that the
fixed maintenance decided by the family Court be
enhanced suitably.

9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the
respondent contended that appellant’s mother has filed an
application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for increasing her
and her daughter’s monthly maintenance previously
granted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and appellant has
completed her B.E. (Computer Science) course and now
she is capable to earn, hence, there is no question of any
enhancement in maintenance amount fixed by family
Court as separately appellant is receiving maintenance at
the rate of Rs.1500/- monthly from her father under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C..

10. The point of consideration is that whether the
appellant is entitled for any enhancement in monthly
maintenance amount fixed by the family Court.

11. Ku. Pragati Bhalla (PW-1) clearly deposed before the
family Court that she took admission in the year 2012 in
B.E. (Computer Science) course which was of four years
course and at the time of her deposition result of final
semester was declared and though at that time her B.E.
(Computer Science) course was nearly to be completed,
but she had taken loan for her studies from UCO Bank and
after completion of B.E. (Computer Science) course she
5 F.A.223/2016

has to pay the lone amount and she was taking coaching
to take admission in MBA course and she is separately
taking coaching for other subjects including languages,
hence, she is not having any time for giving part time
tuition or coaching to students for earning. She deposed
that she is separately living since 2007 and now she is not
desirous to live with her father at any cost.

12. Respondent-Rajendra Bhalla, (DW.2) though deposed
in his examination-in-chief that his monthly income is
about Rs.24,000/- and his two increments have been
withdrawn, consequently his pay is Rs.22,880/- per month
and he has also to bear the expenses of his kitchen and
paying pay of the employees of domestic work, but
respondent did not file any documentary evidence. In his
pay slip (Ex.P-4) the monthly income was shown as
Rs.55,848/- and the family Court rightly observed that
after enforcement of recommendation of Seventh Pay
Commission, respondent’s pay would have been increased.
In the written submission filed on behalf of appellant, it
has been clearly mentioned that the application filed by
present appellant under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. has been
dismissed by the relating Court being premature as
dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2011, as at that time
SLP filed by her mother was pending before the Apex

13. We are of the opinion that in view of the
documentary evidence produced by the appellant before
the family Court regarding monthly income of the
respondent and looking to the present age and other
relating necessities of the young life and as the appellant
is desirous to take admission in MBA course and as she
deposed that she is receiving coaching in other subjects
6 F.A.223/2016

also and she is the only child of the respondent and the
other responsibilities of the respondents, an enhancement
of Rs.500/- in addition to the amount of monthly
maintenance determined by the family Court would be
appropriate and respondent appears capable to pay such
enhanced maintenance amount. In our considered opinion,
appellant’s present appeal appears to be partly acceptable
up to the above-mentioned extent.

14. Consequently, appellant’s appeal is partly allowed
and it is ordered that respondent will pay to the appellant
Rs.4,500/- per month for her maintenance till her
marriage or getting service or starting income whichever
occurs earlier. In view of the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances of the case, no order as to the costs.

(Sheel Nagu) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge

Digitally signed by ASHISH
Date: 2018.02.22 17:53:23 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation