Ganpatrao Bhiwaji Chandiwale vs Jaibai

A.A. Desai, J.—This appeal by the original respondent-husband is directed against the order dated 23-11-1981 ordering payment of maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month, in favour of the respondent-wife, passed u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Appellant married with the respondent about 35 years before the initiation of the proceedings. Respondent-Jaibai continued at her matrimonial home with appellant-Ganpatrao for a period of 5 to 6 years. Thereafter, she was driven. She, therefore, in 1980 initiated the proceedings u/s 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial Court on 23-11-1981 decreed the claim. She also filed application u/s 24 for interim alimony. However, the same was not decided. She then presented application u/s 25 of the Act claiming permanent alimony. She states that the appellant-husband owns about 200 acres of land and he has not provided anything for the maintenance. In support of her claim she examined herself. She was not cross-examined on material aspect except making a suggestion that she is not a wife of the appellant. This suggestion has been denied. The learned Court below taking into consideration the material aspect and evidence on the record ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 100/- per month towards the maintenance. This order has been impugned before me.

Mr. Gawande, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, firstly contended that the order of restitution of conjugal rights suffers from infirmity and also from impropriety. According to him, there should not have been an order of restitution after a gap of 35 years, and when the parties are at the fag end of their life. Since the appellant has not questioned the validity or legality of the order of restitution of conjugal rights I cannot look into the merit of the ground as tried to be contended.

It is further urged that the appellant has made attempt to bring respondent-wife to the matrimonial home but she has refused. The appellant has also issued notices calling upon her to join his company. However, the respondent has not responded. However, no such notice has been filed. As discussed, even the respondent has not been cross-examined.

It is contended that the appellant is an old man of about 70 years. Permitting such persons to suffer an order of payment of maintenance would be penal in nature. I considered this submission. The respondent is equally an old lady. Besides this, appellant is a man with a considerable means as held by the Court below. Moreover, the old lady, namely, the respondent Jaibai also needs support at this stage of her old age.

It is lastly submitted that the respondent-wife also holds certain agricultural lands and she is in a position to maintain herself. The Court below, therefore, took an erroneous decision in awarding maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month. The learned trial Judge considered this aspect in para 11 of the impugned judgment. According to the evidence of the appellant, he had no personal knowledge about the alienated property held by the respondent-wife. His information in this regard as deposed is from the say of other person. He has also filed certified copy of records of-right indicating that the respondent is a holder of 10 acres of land. The learned trial Judge while discussing this aspect has held that there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent-wife derives any income from any land.

Besides this, the respondent who is under the wed-lock with the appellant and the marital relation still subsists, the law casts an obligation on the appellant-husband to maintain or support to maintain her unless the conditions are changed otherwise. Even if she is in a position to maintain, the appellant-husband is still under obligation to provide her for maintenance. Rs. 100/- amount per month as awarded towards the maintenance is meagre considering the income of the appellant from the agricultural land. The appeal, therefore, does not raise any ground touching the validity or legality of the order. The appeal, therefore, must fail. The same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.