Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 667 (MP)

Kamla Bai v. Mathuralal

2014-06-18

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO

body2014
JUDGMENT Since 27.8.2011 different dates were given with the possibility of settlement between the appellant wife and respondent husband, but all efforts brought no result. 2. It seems that in last three years there has been no communication between them and the amicable settlement seems to be remote. 3. Considered IA No. 2487/2005, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. There is delay of 48 days in filing this appeal. 4. For the reasons mentioned in the application that the appellant is a woman of 45 years, (IA No. 2487/2005) is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. Heard. 6. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant for enhancement of alimony under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chachoda, District Guna in H.M.A. Case No. 6-A/01. 7. The brief facts just necessary for disposal of this appeal is that the appellant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. There has been several litigations between them. The appellant filed a suit for seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13 of H.M.A. on the ground of cruelty before the Additional District Judge, Chachoda. However, the same was not allowed. Subsequently, First Appeal No. 2/98 (Kamla Bai v. Mathuralal) was filed before the High Court in which a decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed on 16.1.2001. 8. The appellant wife filed an application under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Additional District Judge, Chachoda which was registered as H.M.A. 6A/01 for grant of alimony at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month. Respondent contested the same. The learned Additional District Judge after affording opportunities to both the parties and on the basis of evidence adduced by them, decided the same on 25.11.2004 and allowing the application granted Rs.500/- as alimony per month which is payable on every 10th of the English calender. 9. Appellant wife has challenged the aforesaid order simply on the ground that the respondent has sufficient means and also earns Rs.2,00,000/- per year and the amount granted by the learned trial Court is not sufficient for her to maintain. Appellant has requested to modify the same and enhance the alimony to the tune of Rs. 1500/- per month. 10. 9. Appellant wife has challenged the aforesaid order simply on the ground that the respondent has sufficient means and also earns Rs.2,00,000/- per year and the amount granted by the learned trial Court is not sufficient for her to maintain. Appellant has requested to modify the same and enhance the alimony to the tune of Rs. 1500/- per month. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent stated at the Bar that the respondent is ready to keep the appellant with him and the amount of alimony granted is more than sufficient, looking to the economic condition of the respondent. 11. Having gone through the record, it is found that the appellant prayed for Rs.1500/- per month and Rs. 6000/- as the alimony for the period already passed. It is pertinent to mention here that there has been a decree of divorce passed against the respondent. The respondent, however, denied the appellant's contentions raised in the suit. The documents submitted by the appellant, including revenue records shows the respondent has cultivating land. Exs.P/2 and P/3 are certified copies of Khasra and Exs. P/4 and P/5 are certified copies of Khatoni. Appellant witness No.2, Randheer (brother of the appellant) has corroborated the statement of the appellant Kamlabai. 12. Respondent has admitted in his cross-examination that he is having cultivating land at village Amaliya and Balrampur. Besides a joint holding of agricultural land along with other relatives at village Barsat. 13. Keeping in view the above and looking to the high inflation the amount of Rs.500/- seems to be meagre. The contention of having agricultural land and income from the same has not been controverted by the respondent. The appellant is a lady aged about 50 years, has no means to survive. It would be just and appropriate to enhance monthly alimony from Rs.500/-to Rs. 1500/-. The husband owes a social and moral responsibility to take care of his liability as well as has the legal and moral responsibility to support his divorcee wife. 14. The demand for enhancement from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1500/- is not excessive nor harsh, keeping in view that the appellant is an old lady of 50 years, uneducated and having not in a position to earn something for herself. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The alimony awarded to the appellant is enhanced to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month. 16. 500/- to Rs. 1500/- is not excessive nor harsh, keeping in view that the appellant is an old lady of 50 years, uneducated and having not in a position to earn something for herself. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The alimony awarded to the appellant is enhanced to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month. 16. Looking to the facts of the case, it is ordered that the costs of this appeal and counsel fee as per schedule will be borne by the respondent. Appeal allowed.