Appeal filed by husband challenging maintenance of Rs. 2,000/month awarded to wife in divorce proceedings. Court holds that amount is not excessive as wife resides in appellant's premises but must meet own expenses. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
F.C.A.No.38 of 2012
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 02.12.1987 and they were also blessed with a son and a daughter in the year 1993 and 1995, respectively. Recently, disputes arose between them. The respondent filed O.P.No.1007 of 2008 under Sections 13(1) (ia) and (ib), 25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce and for custody of the minor daughter. She pleaded that the appellant deserted her and neglected to maintain herself and the children. Various events that took place between them and the proceedings that ensued have also been stated. The appellant opposed the O.P. The trial Court partly allowed the O.P. only to the extent of granting maintenance @ Rs.2,000/-, per month, to the respondent and their daughter. The fact that the minor daughter is with the respondent was taken note of. Relief of divorce was denied. This appeal is filed challenging the decree, in so far as it awarded maintenance @ Rs.2,000/-, per month.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration.
a) “Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion?
b) Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant permanent custody of her minor daughter born on 16.02.1995?
c) Whether the petitioner is permitted to take custody of her minor son on every Saturday and Sunday and during summer vacations, from the respondent?
d) Whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent alimony as prayed for?”
The respondent deposed as PW.1 and filed Exs.P.1 and P.2. The appellant deposed as RW.1 and he filed Exs.B.1 to B.10. The trial Court partly allowed the O.P.
This is a typical case where the respondent, who wanted a decree for divorce against the appellant, did not feel aggrieved when that very relief was denied to her. The limited grievance of the appellant is only about the maintenance granted to the respondent and their daughter. The principal contention advanced in this behalf is that the respondent is residing in the same premises in which the appellant is also residing. Even if that is true, the appellant cannot avoid his liability to maintain his wife and minor daughter. By any standard, Rs.2,000/-, per month, cannot be said to be excessive. Though the respondent is living in the premises owned by the appellant, she has to meet the expenditure for food and other necessities. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall stand disposed of.
____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
___________ S.V.BHATT, J.
Dated:08.07.2013 GJ
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
F.C.A.No.38 of 2012
(Judgment of the Bench, delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
Date:08.07.2013
GJ
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court's order awarding monthly maintenance to the wife.
Whether the appellant is required to grant a higher maintenance amount.
Whether the respondents cause of grievance is limited to the quantum of maintenance awarded.
Appellant (Husband)
Respondent (Wife)
L.Narasimha Reddy
S.V.Bhatt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
