her deposition on 08.08.2017. The impugned judgment was passed on 21.03.2024. Thus, on the date of delivery of judgment, the opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.5 attained majority. It is not disputed that opposite party no.4 is now married. Thus, on the date of the order passed by the learned Principal Judge in the maintenance case suffers from material irregularity, when the learned Principal Judge directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the major sons and married daughter of the parties. It is, however, not disputed that the opposite party no.2 being his legally married wife is entitled to get maintenance. With regard to the quantum of maintenance, the trial Court held that the opposite party no.2 is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month. I have already recorded that the petitioner has been working as a priest in a local temple. He did not disclose his daily monthly income as a priest. The wife of the petitioner stated that he owns an autorickshaw and earns Rs. 20,000/- per month from the said autorickshaw by driving it commercially. The said fact has not been denied specifically by the petitioner in course of trial of the case.
