Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1050 (RAJ)

Satyanarayan Vyas v. Sushila

2006-04-03

R.P.VYAS

body2006
Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur passed on 31.07.2001 on an application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The respondent, Smt. Sushila is married to Shri Satyanarayan Vyas, the appellant on 012.1985. She has moved an application for maintenance that since her husband has turned her out from her matrimonial home and time and again has not responded the demand for maintenance. She claimed by way of maintenance Rs. 4,400/- per month with effect from the date of filing the application and also Rs. 1100/-by way of expenses for the said proceedings. She also claimed medical expenses incurred by her during her pregnancy. The husband denied to have turned the applicant out of their matrimonial home. While in reply, the husband has stated that he was willing to keep his wife and had also referred to the compromise arrived at between the parties during the pendency of application for restitution of conjugal rights which had been filed earlier, on the basis of which the said application was rejected, has shown his unwillingness to live together during reconciliation efforts made by the Court. He denied the claim made by the applicant-wife about his monthly income and alleged that she herself is earning enough to maintain herself . 3. The fact that husband has also filed an application for dissolution of marriage goes to show that parties are not living together and that husband is not willing to continue with the marital knot notwithstanding the husband asserting in reply to application for maintenance claimed by wife that he is still prepared to live with his wife. This only shows that such assertion of willingness to live together is only a pretext to defeat the claim of wife to maintenance. 4. The trial Court after considering the material on record, in the first instance, made an interim order for maintenance payable to wife at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month on 11.03.1997 and later on by order under appeal found that the husband has deserted the wife and she while living separately is entitled for the maintenance. Enquiring about the income of her husband, it was found that husband was employed in the Bank and was drawing salary of Rs. 500/-per month on 11.03.1997 and later on by order under appeal found that the husband has deserted the wife and she while living separately is entitled for the maintenance. Enquiring about the income of her husband, it was found that husband was employed in the Bank and was drawing salary of Rs. 15,000/-per month and also found that it is not proved on record that wife is earning any regular income which is sufficient to maintain herself . 5. With these findings, looking to the income of the husband and need of the wife commensurating with the status of husband, by order dated 31.07.2001 a sum of Rs. 2500/-per month was fixed by way of maintenance payable to wife by the husband with effect from the date of filing of the application i.e. on 11.07.1997 against which, the amount already paid under the interim order passed on 11.03.1997, was allowed to be adjusted. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2001, the husband has preferred an application for reducing the amount of maintenance whereas the wife has preferred the cross-objection seeking an increase in the amount of monthly maintenance. 7. We notice that during this period, on application moved under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the decree for divorce was passed on the very same date i.e. on 31.07.2001 which has since been affirmed by this Court by a separate Judgment . 8. Since the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by a decree for divorce, the question of wife living separate from her husband without reasonable cause which may dis-entitle her from claiming maintenance no more survives. A divorced wife is also entitled to claim maintenance from her husband so long as she does not remarry is clear from the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Looking to the circumstances of the case, the award of Rs. 2500/-cannot be said to be excessive nor it can be said that the respondent-wife is not entitled to maintenance. The decree for divorce is primarily founded on the conduct of wife amounting to mental cruelty and not on the ground of desertion. 9. Looking to the circumstances of the case, the award of Rs. 2500/-cannot be said to be excessive nor it can be said that the respondent-wife is not entitled to maintenance. The decree for divorce is primarily founded on the conduct of wife amounting to mental cruelty and not on the ground of desertion. 9. In these circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court in the application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is just and there is no merit in the appeal for reducing the amount of maintenance awarded to the wife in the present case. 10. In the totality of circumstances, we do not find any merit in cross-objection for increase in monthly maintenance also, the same is also dismissed.