Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1272 (MAD)

V. Balu v. Tmt. Kalyani

2008-04-15

S.PALANIVELU

body2008
Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 27.06.1968. In the year 1972, a girl baby was born to them. In 1974, on 28.03.1974, a male baby was also born to them which died later. There was some misunderstanding between the spouses, since the respondent suspected that the petitioner was having illicit connection with one Chinnaponnu. A customary divorce was held between the spouses in a panchayat, which was also reduced to writing. Since the respondent has no means to maintain her, she had claimed maintenance from her divorced husband. 3. In this petition preferred by the petitioner/husband he has alleged that at the time of divorce in the village panchayat on 02.11.1979, he executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the respondent/wife with respect to the land with an extent of 3 acres and 89 cents settling on her for life. She derives a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) per mensum from the agricultural land and also a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) per mensum by maintaining milch animals. In the above said circumstances, she is not eligible to claim maintenance. 4.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur has entertained the plea of the respondent, allowed the petition thereby directing the present petitioner/husband to pay maintenance to his wife Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred Only) per month. The petitioner carried the order in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Karur in C.R.P.No. 26 of 2005, in which the learned Sessions Judge on 04.01.2006 passed orders, dismissing the revision petition and confirming the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has been living in affluent circumstances and she is not at all entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. He refers to settlement deed dated 02.11.1979, executed in her favour and submitted that the lands are cultivable lands and she is receiving sufficient income from the said property. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that there is no proof whatsoever to establish that those lands are yielding sufficient income to the respondent to maintain herself. He also draws the attention of this Court to the finding that the respondent has not produced any document to show that his wife was getting ample income to maintain herself. He also draws the attention of this Court to the finding that the respondent has not produced any document to show that his wife was getting ample income to maintain herself. Based upon the above stated point, he reached a conclusion that she was able to eke out her livelihood. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that even the husband/respondent filed a vacate stay petition before this Court, in these proceedings that she was having income from the milk vending business in her village and everybody knew how much income was derived from it. He also pointed out that the income is also sufficient to maintain herself. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his contention, placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Unnamalai alias Vimala v. P. Subramanian reported in 2005 M.L.J. (Crl.) 252, wherein it is observed that the claim of the wife for maintenance after a lapse of long period will not constitute a good ground for maintenance, since for the said period, she was able to maintain herself, the claim of the maintenance could not be entertained by the Court. In the said decision, it is observed that the wife was having means to live separately without any aid of her husband and but from immovable properties. 9. In the case on hand, the customary divorce took place in the year 1979. The maintenance case was filed in the year 2003 after the lapse of about 24 years. It is bottom line of the plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the respondent/wife has become stale. 10. This Court could not accept the said contention for the reason that the facts available in the above said decisions are quite distinguishable. In the said case, the wife was found to be in affluent circumstances, she was getting more income from the immovable properties and further she was only one daughter to her parents. The facts in this case point out that there is no proof that she has been getting sufficient income to maintain herself. 11. In the said case, the wife was found to be in affluent circumstances, she was getting more income from the immovable properties and further she was only one daughter to her parents. The facts in this case point out that there is no proof that she has been getting sufficient income to maintain herself. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent cited a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Smt. Vanamala v. Shri. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta reported in 1995(II) CTC 255, wherein it is observed that even after divorce the wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. For the identical proposition of law, he cited the decision of the Kerala High Court in Sadasivan Pillai v. Vijayalakshmi reported in 1987 CRI. L.J.765. 12. The totality of the circumstances available in this case would go a long way to show that the petitioner is responsible to maintain his wife even though she was divorced. There is no evidence to show that she was having sufficient income. For the reasons stated above, the petition is devoid of merits which suffers dismissal. Hence the criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.