Narayan Manikrao Phesate vs Nirmala Narayan Phesate

Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant. None present for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgments and orders as well as the record.

The appellant/husband being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02-05-1998 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nanded in RCA No.319/1993, whereby dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nanded thereby allowed the Hindu Marriage Petition No. 21/1992 and granted decree of divorce however, he was directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.400/- per month to the respondent and her son in addition of maintenance amount awarded in Misc. Application No. 112/1986, preferred before the learned Magistrate, Solapur, has been filed as an appeal.

By order dated 21-02-2001, this court, after considering the ground No. II and X raised in the appeal memo as a ‘substantial question of law’ has ‘admitted’ the appeal.

Having heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and having gone through the impugned judgments and orders, and the record, it appears that the appellant and respondent are husband and wife. The appellant has filed a Hindu Marriage Petition No. 21/1992 under Sections 13(1) (i-a) & 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, partly allowed the petition, and a decree of divorce was passed in favour of the appellant. However, the appellant was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent and her son, in addition to the maintenance amount awarded in Misc. Application No. 112/1986 before the learned Magistrate, Solapur. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Nanded. After considering the evidence on record, the learned District Judge held that the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper, and no interference is required in the appellate jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this second appeal.

Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant, and perusal of the impugned judgments and record, the following point arises for consideration:-

I have gone through the ground Nos. II and X of the appeal memo, which have been considered as a substantial question of law while admitting the appeal.

The learned Advocate for the appellant during the argument failed to point out how the judgments and orders passed by the learned trial court, as well as the learned appellate court, are improper or unjust, or how the findings recorded therein are illegal. On the contrary, it appears that the judgments and orders passed by the learned trial court and the appellate court are just and proper, and no interference is required in the second appeal on the ground No.II, which has been considered as a Substantial question of law, in fact, pertains to the appreciation of the evidence and not to the question of law and ground No. X also cannot be termed as a substantial question of law, as the respondent can exhaust the remedy to claim maintenance under various Acts, as she is entitled. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a question of law that the learned trial court has not considered.

As such, I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellant in that regard. Hence, I answer point No. (i) in the negative.

As a result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

R & P be sent back to the concerned courts.

Inform the learned concerned courts accordingly.