JUDGMENT 1. - On September 1, 1965 respondent wife moved an application for judicial separation under the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant husband. The Court framed the following:-Issue No. 1:- Whether the petitioner (wife) was treated by the respondent (husband) in the manner which amounted to cruelty. Issue No. 2:- Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Issue No. 3:- Relief? 2. The District Judge by his order dated 25.8.70 found both the issues in favour of the wife. During the pendency of the petition the wife had moved an application on December 9, 1967 for payment of permanent alimony. The District Judge while passing his order dated 25.8.1970 also fixed Rs. 750/- per month as maintenance for the wife for life while she remains unmarried. The husband filed an appeal in this Court. Gattani J by his order dated December 2, 1971 felt that framing of an issue in respect of the quantum of alimony was essential to the right decision of the application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and he therefore framed the following issue namely, "whether the petitioner is entitled to get alimony from her husband Sangram Singh and if so, what should be the quantum of that alimony per month." He remanded the case back to the District Judge with the direction that Lower Court will take evidence of both the parties and to submit the report to this Court. Therefore, the wife led evidence before the District Judge. During the pendency of the matter before the District Judge that Court order on February 8, 1972 that the total amount of arrears which comes to Rs. 30,800/- will be paid by Sangram Singh to Daulat Kumari in monthly instalment at the rate of Rs. 10,300/-. The first instalment was to be paid on 7.3.72, and the third instalment was to be paid on 7.5.72 and that if any instalment was not paid husband would be debarred from taking part in the proceedings. 30,800/- will be paid by Sangram Singh to Daulat Kumari in monthly instalment at the rate of Rs. 10,300/-. The first instalment was to be paid on 7.3.72, and the third instalment was to be paid on 7.5.72 and that if any instalment was not paid husband would be debarred from taking part in the proceedings. The appellant was not able to pay the arrears and though he applied before the District Judge for extension of time to allow him to lead evidence, the District Judge did not see any reason to change his earlier order and therefore Sangram Singh was not allowed to lead evidence before the trial Court. The District Judge, therefore, considered the evidence and come to the conclusion that maintenance at Rs.750/- per month cannot be considered by any standard to be excessive and granted that amount as maintenance to the wife. The District Judge also rejected the charge of adultery against the wife and found no evidence sufficient for that. He thereafter submitted the report dated 11.8.72 to this Court. 3. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant husband is that the denial of opportunity by the District Judge to lead evidence was not justified and he has been deprived of proving his case. Reference to the order of the District Judge shows that it was after full hearing that the direction was given for the payment of arrears of maintenance by 7th May, 1972. The District Judge noted that Rs.400/- per month which was directed to be paid by Sangram Singh had not been paid and therefore in the circumstances an order debarring him from leading evidence was passed. I see no reason to take a different view from that taken by the learned District Judge. That apart, there is a stronger reason why the appellant cannot make any grievance on this score. The record shows that after the receipt of the report the matter came before this Court on 22.9.72 when grievance was made by the appellant husband that he was not allowed to produce evidence because he failed to pay a part of arrears of maintenance. The record shows that after the receipt of the report the matter came before this Court on 22.9.72 when grievance was made by the appellant husband that he was not allowed to produce evidence because he failed to pay a part of arrears of maintenance. On this by an agreement of the learned counsel for both the parties it was agreed that after the witnesses of the wife had been examined the statement of the appellant will be recorded subject to the condition that he will clear off all arrears of maintenance. Subsequently, an application was filed by the appellant under Order 13 rule 2 and Order 41 Rule 27 by which the appellant wanted to produce evidence in the court. By an order dated 7.8.74 the appellant was given leave to produce the documents in evidence subject to payment of cost. 7.10.74 was fixed for evidence of the appellant but he was again absent and the Court adjourned the case for recording his statement on 18.11.74. The appellant again was absent and the matter was adjourned for recording his statement on 18.2.75. It appears that as the petitioner was not able to clear arrears date for recording the appellants evidence continued to be adjourned. On 10.10.75 Tyagi J. (as his Lordship then was) allowed the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence provided he cleared off all arrears, within two months. In case of failure to clear arrears, the application for adducing evidence shall stand automatically dismissed. The matter having come up before Acting C.J. on 11.3.76 it was ordered that the order of this Court dated 10.10.75 was pre-emptory in nature and as the appellant had not deposited the amount of arrears, he cannot now adduce evidence and the case should listed for hearing. The appellant had again filed an application dated 2.8.76 under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code praying that he should be allowed to adduce evidence and has said that he did not pay the arrears because of certain difficulties. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Agarwal has stated that as the arrears have now been paid upto date the appellant should be allowed to lead evidence. I am afraid this application cannot be entertained. By an order dated 22.9.72 the appellant had been given opportunity to produce evidence subject to payment of arrears. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Agarwal has stated that as the arrears have now been paid upto date the appellant should be allowed to lead evidence. I am afraid this application cannot be entertained. By an order dated 22.9.72 the appellant had been given opportunity to produce evidence subject to payment of arrears. A couple of years has passed yet the arrears remained not fully paid and even the last opportunity was given to him to pay the arrears within two months, on 10.10.75. Another effort was made to persuade Tyagi Acting C.J. but the same was unsuccessful as is clear from the order dated 11.3.76. I see no reason to come to a different conclusion and to allow the appellant to adduce evidence at this belated stage as it would not be proper to reopen the order which has been passed by this Court previously. I therefore, agree with the order passed by the District Court in closing the evidence when the appellant did not pay the arrears. Opportunity was given to him by this court but he dis-entitled himself by his own fault. He cannot now seek indulgence of this Court for being given another opportunity. 4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that maintenance awarded by the District Judge is excessive. It is relevant to note in this connection that the parties had as far back as on 13.10.1962 arrived at an agreement for personal arrangement under which the wife was to be paid Rs. 150/- per month as pocket money and Rs. 25/- per month as personal allowance for petrol at the time when she was staying at Nawalgrah house i.e. the husband's house with facilities of kitchen and car. It was stated in that agreement that in case Nawalgarh house is sold or rented out other living arrangements and separate flat will be arranged and a sum of Rs. 400/- will be given for all expenses. Learned counsel for the appellant suggests that Rs. 400/- was agreed between the parties, therefore, there is no justification for fixing Rs.750/- by the District Judge. The counsel for the wife says that the agreement cannot be given this meaning. According to him the arrangement have to be made apart from giving Rs. 400/- per month for other expenses. Learned counsel for the appellant suggests that Rs. 400/- was agreed between the parties, therefore, there is no justification for fixing Rs.750/- by the District Judge. The counsel for the wife says that the agreement cannot be given this meaning. According to him the arrangement have to be made apart from giving Rs. 400/- per month for other expenses. This apart, even if the amount of Rs.400/- was to be taken as agreed in the year 1962 considering the steep rise of prices since then Rs.750/- cannot be said to be so excessive. Learned counsel for the appellant had urged that the appellant was director of Maharaja of Jaipur Museum Trust and has lost his job in the year 1969 and had got no other job since then and therefore this amount of Rs.750/- was a great burden on him. It is true that there is no evidence that the appellant had got any other job since he ceased to be in the job in the year 1969. Bur a reference to the statement made his brother Sumer Singh shows that the appellant is in exclusive possession of Nawalgarh house of an area of 7000 sq.yards of land including the land built upon, it was also admitted that there is a farm owned by both brothers but he had no idea of the income of the farm which is in possession of the appellant. This far is giving an income of about Rs. 25,000/- according to the statement of Daulat Kumari. It was also accepted by the appellant that an amount of one lacs as Tikka was paid at the time of the marriage though he has stated that this amount was kept by his father and was not utilised by him. Evidence was also given by the wife that the husband was not utilised by him. Evidence was also given by the wife that the husband was also making an income out of the sale of picture thought his was denied by the husband. The District Judge had not accepted the suggestion of the appellant that the wife was living in adultery. The counsel for the appellant did not deal with this aspect because according to him, as some new evidence has come to appellants notice he may move a separate application under Section 25 of the Act. The District Judge had not accepted the suggestion of the appellant that the wife was living in adultery. The counsel for the appellant did not deal with this aspect because according to him, as some new evidence has come to appellants notice he may move a separate application under Section 25 of the Act. I need not say anything, and the appellant can take steps as are open to him under the law. It is in evidence that the parties belong to very affluent families, the fathers of both the parties having been in enjoyment of Jagir of about Rs.2,50,000/- a year. I do not therefore think, keeping in view all the circumstances that the order of the learned District Judge fixing Rs.750/- P.M. as maintenance is in any manner so excessive or unjustified as to call for interference. I would consequently dismiss the appellant's appeal with no costs. There is cross objection which has been filed by the wife asking for enhancement of the amount of maintenance from Rs.750/- to 1150/- per month. The case of the appellant husband was that she had a fixed deposit of Rs.30,000/- in M/s. Jaipur Metals and Electrical, Jaipur from which she is getting about Rs. 250/- to Rs.350/- per month as interest in addition to the ornaments worth over a couple of lakhs which are with her. She however, has denied it and maintaining that she has sold her Jewellery and withdrawn the Fixed Deposit and has spent it away because of shortage of funds. She admits to maintaining a car and servants. She is obviously not so badly off as not to live properly. I, therefore, considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, see no justification for enhancing any amount. The cross objections are therefore dismissed. 5. The result is that both the appeal and cross-objections are dismissed but without any order as to costs. *******