Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 769 (MP)

Arun Kumar v. Kuntilika

2015-07-27

A.M.KHANWILKAR, VANDANA KASREKAR

body2015
ORDER 1. This first appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, dated 6.5.1999 in Civil Suit No.16-A/1994. 2. The trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the appellant for divorce and while doing so awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the respondent - wife and minor son who was around 5 years at the time of the institution of the suit. In addition, the trial Court directed the appellant to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- as one time maintenance towards higher education expenses for the minor son. In the present appeal, the decree of divorce has not been questioned. The challenge is only to the quantum of monthly maintenance and one time maintenance ordered to be paid to the wife for her maintenance as well as maintenance of minor son. 3. The respondent though served has not chosen to appear. 4. As aforesaid, the challenge in this petition is limited to the quantum of maintenance awarded to the respondent wife for herself and for the minor son who is admittedly staying with the respondent at Mumbai. 5. The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the respondents and on the question of quantum of maintenance amount ? 6. Although the appeal takes exception to the conclusion reached by the trial Court regarding maintenance amount awarded to the respondents, however, the finding on the question whether the respondent was in service at the relevant time, as noted by the trial Court is not assailed before us. In other words, the appellant has chosen not to question the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court that the respondent was not in a position to maintain herself and on which basis awarded monthly maintenance amount to be paid to the respondent wife for herself and for maintenance of their minor son. 7. Therefore, the next question that arises for consideration is: whether the quantum of maintenance amount determined by the trial Court can be said to be just and proper ? The trial Court has taken into account that the appellant was working as Superintendent Engineer in a reputed Government Undertaking (Western Coal Fields Ltd.). He was drawing salary of around Rs.13,500/- per month. The trial Court has taken into account that the appellant was working as Superintendent Engineer in a reputed Government Undertaking (Western Coal Fields Ltd.). He was drawing salary of around Rs.13,500/- per month. Keeping that in mind, the trial Court thought it appropriate to direct the appellant to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance for the wife and minor son. The fact that the appellant was drawing monthly salary of amount of Rs.13,500/- is indisputable, in view of his salary slips proved before the trial Court. 8. The next question is: whether the quantum of monthly amount of Rs.5,000/- directed to be paid can be said to be excessive ? 9. The trial Court after analyzing the relevant aspects has noted that the respondent was staying at Mumbai along with minor son. She was not in a position to maintain herself and to properly look after the minor son, in particular his educational expenses. Keeping that in mind, the trial Court has awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid to the respondents for her maintenance as well as maintenance of her son. That amount roughly works out to around 1/3rd of the amount earned by the appellant per month. The wife and the minor son has been asked to settle with sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Further, the respondent was admittedly residing at Mumbai where the cost of living was bound to be very high. The respondent has not come forward to ask for enhancement of the amount already awarded or later on, because of the rise of the income of the appellant or the cost of living/inflation. In our view, no interference is warranted with the discretion exercised by the trial Court in awarding sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondents for her maintenance and for maintenance of the minor son, who in addition to other expenses was required to spend on his education. 10. As a result, we find no merits in interfering with the said view taken by the trial Court. The decision of the trial Court directing the appellant to pay monthly sum of Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance of the respondent and minor son will have to be upheld. 11. The next question is: whether the trial Court committed error in directing the appellant to pay one time maintenance amount of Rs.50,000/-, towards higher education expenses for the minor son. The decision of the trial Court directing the appellant to pay monthly sum of Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance of the respondent and minor son will have to be upheld. 11. The next question is: whether the trial Court committed error in directing the appellant to pay one time maintenance amount of Rs.50,000/-, towards higher education expenses for the minor son. The trial Court has recorded reasons for awarding sum of Rs.50,000/- towards one time educational expenses to be paid to the minor son. That can be discerned from paras 18 to 21 of the impugned judgment. The fact that the son was minor and was pursuing education has not been disputed. The provision of one time payment has been made for the minor son towards his future/higher education. That being the obligation of the father, no interference even with the said direction issued by the trial Court is warranted especially because the amount is quite reasonable and it will have to be spent on the education and in particular higher education of his own son. 12. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, we find no merits in this appeal. The same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.