Hardev vs Anuradha

Calling in question tenability of the judgment and decree dated 22.04.04 passed by the Additional District Judge Khurai in Civil Suit No. 48-A/2000 in the matter of allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff husband for dissolution of marriage and in the matter of granting of maintenance @ Rs. 2,000 per month, this appeal has been filed limited to the extent of maintenance granted only.

Appellant and non-appellant were married on 11.12.99 and it is said that they lived together for about 6-8 months i.e. upto August 2000 and now they are living separately since then. On the grounds of various factors like cruelty and desertion, the suit in question has been filed by the plaintiff husband which has been decreed.

In the said proceedings, respondent wife contested the matter and also claimed permanent alimony. The suit for dissolution of marriage has been allowed. However, as the maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month has been granted, this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff husband only to the effect of challenging the maintenance granted as indicated hereinabove. It may be taken note of that the wife did not challenge the decree for dissolution of marriage nor did she file any counter claim. That being so, the only question warranting consideration by us is as to whether the maintenance granted being in accordance to law or otherwise.

When the suit in question was decided and when the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 22.04.04, the respondent wife was unemployed and based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is found that she is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 2,000/-. The amount of maintenance is challenged on the ground that now the respondent is working as a Contract Teacher. She is getting about Rs. 7,000/- per month and, therefore, now the maintenance awarded be quashed and the documents showing receipt of the amount as salary has been filed by the appellant husband who is assisted by his counsel and submitted that now respondent is a contract teacher. However, it is seen that she is appointed very recently, i.e. after a period of more than 6-7 years of passing of the impugned order and, therefore, only because she has been granted some contract appointment for a fix period of one year, can the maintenance granted be rejected ?

From the records and assertions made by the appellant in I. A. No. 4052/14, it is seen that respondent wife is granted contract appointment as a contract teacher only on 8.07.13 that is after a period of more than 9 years of passing the judgment and decree. The appointment of contract teacher is only for a period of one year and there is nothing to show that the appointment is regular in nature. On the contrary, the appointment of Contract Teacher in the State of M. P. is fixed in accordance with the Contract Teachers Appointment Rules and merely because the respondent wife is appointed for short period on contract basis, it is not appropriate for us to interfere into the matter when in the year 2004, the only maintenance granted was Rs. 2,000/-.

A perusal of the reasons given by the trial Court while answering issue nos. 4 and 5 is based on the income of the appellant and accordingly the maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- has been assessed, in doing so, no error has been committed.

That being so, we see no error warranting reconsideration into the matter.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.