Gangoo Nishad vs Kamla Nishad

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Applicant-husband has challenged the order granting maintenance amounting to Rs. 700/- per month to his wife non-applicant. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that marriage of the applicant with non-applicant was solemnized in the year 1962 and she is living separately 10 years of marriage and the application for maintenance was filed on 09/05/2003 without explaining the delay of 30 years in filing the same therefore, the order granting maintenance be set aside.

On the other hand, Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant would submit that the applicant never raised the ground of delay before the Family Court and contested the application on merits.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

It is true that the application for maintenance has been filed after delay of 30 years from the date of living separately but the fact remains that the applicant did not raise the point of delay in filing the application before the Family Court therefore, the non-applicant could not explain the delay in filing the application. Had such a ground been raised before the Family Court, it would have been replied suitably by the non-applicant. If the applicant is allowed to take plea of delay in filing the application before this Court, it would cause serious prejudice to the non-applicant as she had no opportunity to reply suitably before the Family Court.

Apart from this, no legal evidence has been brought on record to hold that the non-applicant has sufficient means to maintain herself, whereas, Family Court has recorded a finding that she is unable to maintain herself. In view of the aforesaid finding, I do not find any merit in this revision, same is deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.