Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1235 (MP)

Prakash Narayan Shrivastava v. Kamini ALIAS Papul

2003-11-13

A.K.AWASTHY

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT/petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 10. 10. 1996 passed by the IXth Additional District Judge-Indore in Hindu Marriage Case No. 273/1991, against the order of fixing of Rs. 2,000/- p. m. as permanent alimony to the respondent/defendant. ( 2. ) ADMITTED facts of the case are that marriage in between the appellant and the respondent was performed on 24. 11. 1984 at Khargone according to the Hindu rites and customs and from the wedlock there is a son and a daughter who are at present living with the respondent/defendant. ( 3. ) THE case of the petitioner is that after about 3 years of the marriage the behaviour of the defendant became abnormal and she used to utter filthy words and habitually threatened the petitioner that she will involve him in a criminal case and she will commit suicide by putting herself on fire. It is further alleged by the petitioner that his wife had doused herself with the kerosene oil and tried to finish her life by making an attempt to put the fire. The petitioner has further pleaded that the behaviour of the defendant has become intolerable and cruel. The petitioner has further pleaded that the defendant has left the matrimonial house with her daughter and son and she has refused to live with the petitioner. ( 4. ) THE defendant has denied the allegations. ( 5. ) THE learned Trial Court after framing the issues and examining the witnesses passed a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, the learned Trial Court at the time of passing of the decree has ordered payment of Rs. 2,000/- p. m. as permanent alimony to the respondent/wife. ( 6. ) THE appellant husband has challenged the order of the learned Trial Court of permanent alimony on the ground that the learned Trial Court has not held an inquiry or framed the issue and the amount of Rs. 2,000/- is excessive and as such the amount of alimony be reduced. ( 7. ) IT is not in dispute that the appellant husband is the Assistant Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School and as per Pay Certificate (Ex. P/5) it is clear that in February 1990 the basic pay of the appellant was Rs. 1,180/ -. 2,000/- is excessive and as such the amount of alimony be reduced. ( 7. ) IT is not in dispute that the appellant husband is the Assistant Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School and as per Pay Certificate (Ex. P/5) it is clear that in February 1990 the basic pay of the appellant was Rs. 1,180/ -. After 1990 in last 13 years the pay of the Government servant has gone up. The appellant has not filed either before the Trial Court or at the time of passing of decree in 1996 his pay certificate in order to prove what was the total pay he was withdrawing. The learned Trial Court has observed that there is a hike of 159% of the DA and the total pay of the appellant in the year 1996 should be around 4,000/ -. The respondent is not earning. She is having one son and one daughter from the appellant. In appeal also the appellant has not filed the pay certificate in order to show that he is getting less than Rs. 4,000/- p. m. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- appears to be excessive to some extent and it may cast hardship to the appellant husband, but looking to the other side helpless wife and two young children I do not think that the amount of Rs. 2,000/- is excessive for the husband and her children and as such I do not think that it is a fit case to interfere with the amount of maintenance granted to the respondent wife. ( 8. ) THE appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.