ORDER
R.S. Garg, J.
1. In a suit filed by the husband against the wife seeking a decree of divorce, the wife made an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance and litigation expenses. The matter was contested by the husband and he inter alia pleaded that his carry home salary was about Rs. 5-6 thousand, therefore, the wife is not entitled to any maintenance. The parties joined the enquiry. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court granted a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards the litigation expenses and also allowed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the said order, the husband has filed this revision petition.
2. I have heard the parties at length.
3. From the salary certificate filed at Annexure A/3, it would appear that the gross earning of the husband was Rs. 15,916/- and his carry home salary was Rs. 7,965 / -. On a close scrutiny both these figures would appear to be deceptive. The gross salary includes a sum of Rs. 2,025/- as arrears of the previous year. It is not known to anybody that these arrears have been paid once for all or are being paid every month. Ordinarily the arrears are paid once for all, therefore, this amount of Rs. 2,025/- deserves to be deducted from the gross salary. The gross salary thereafter would be Rs. 13,900/-. The petitioner is depositing a sum of Rs. 4,500/- towards his provident fund subscription. Similarly income tax, professional tax, Seva Suraksha Nidhi and other amounts are being deducted from his salary. He has taken certain loans and is repaying the same. An earning person cannot be permitted to say that as he is repaying the loans earlier taken by him, the credit of such repayment should also be given to him. When a person takes loan from his employer or from the provident fund, in fact he withdraws the salary in advance. Such withdrawal on one side enure to the benefit of the employee and then he is required to repay the same in monthly instalments. What has been taken in advance cannot be considered to be a liability. After giving proper deductions for the mandatory and necessary cuts in the salary, I hold that the petitioner’s carry home salary would be around Rs. 10,200/- per month.
4. The petitioner is in possession and in custody of his own daughter. He has to look after the daughter properly. The petitioner has taken certain loans for building a house and is now required to pay back the amount. True it is that he would create some property in his favour, but the carry home salary would certainly be adversely affected.
5. Taking into consideration the carry home salary and the requirement of the wife who is at present living with her parents and brothers at Nagpur and also taking into consideration that she has nowhere stated that she would leave the custody and company of her parents and brothers, I am of the opinion that if the maintenance amount is fixed at Rs. 2,500/- per month, the same would meet the ends of justice. So far as litigation expenses are concerned, I find no reason to interfere.
6. The petition, to the extent indicated above, is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall pay sum of Rs. 2,500/- p.m. towards the maintenance to the & non -applicant/wife. The amount of the arrears shall be deposited by the petitioner from the date of the order. The arrears of the maintenance shall be deposited by the applicant with the Trial Court within a period of two months from today.