AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradip Mohanty, J.—Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the judgment dated
7.1.2002 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 269 of 2000. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2002 has been filed by the
wife and children for enhancement of the amount of maintenance whereas Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002 has been filed by the husband to set aside
the impugned judgment.
Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment, which will govern both the
cases.
Appellant No. 1 and respondent in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2002 are wife and husband respectively. Appellants 2 to 6 are their children. The wife
and children (Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2002) filed a petition under Sections 18 & 20 of the Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act
before the Family Court claiming monthly maintenance, cost of separate residence and marriage expenses of appellants 2 to 6. Their case is that
appellant No. 1 married the respondent according to Hindu rites and customs and led their conjugal life. To their wedlock, one son and five
daughters were born. Due to dissension in the joint family of the husband, parties shifted their residence to a nearby village and resided there in a
rented house. The respondent is a Government servant. He was continuously visiting his wife and children and taking their care till the year 1997. It
is alleged by the appellants that from the year 1997, the respondent did not visit them, nor did he take care of them. He also did not. provide
anything for their maintenance. They have no means or source of income. The husband is getting Rs. 15,000/- per month as salary but is neglecting
his wife and children.
The case of the respondent is complete denial of the allegations. According to him, he and his wife led a happy conjugal life till 2000. Due to the
behaviour and rowdy nature of the wife, dispute arose between them. In order to harass him, the wife has filed the case. He submitted that his
monthly income is Rs. 9,000/-only. He is serving as an Assistant Engineer and, due to his posting at Baripada, he is staying there.
In order to prove their case, the appellants examined three witnesses on their behalf including the appellants 1 & 3 as P.Ws. 1 & 3 respectively.
P. W. 2 is an independent witness who deposed about the living of the appellants in the house of his brother on rent. In support of his case, the
respondent has examined himself as O.P. W. No. 1.
The Learned Judge, Family Court, after going through the evidence on record and hearing Learned Counsel for the parties vide the impugned
judgment disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- to each of the six petitioners (wife and five
daughters) before him and Rs. 50,000/-each to petitioners 2, 3 & 4 towards their marriage expenses one month prior to their marriage.
Mr. Pattnaik, Learned Counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2002, submitted that while fixing the quantum of maintenance, which,
according to him, is too meagre, the Judge, Family Court, should have taken into consideration the status of the parties, their necessities, change of
circumstances and the mode of living. He also urged that the Judge, Family Court, should not have accepted the statement of the husband that his
monthly salary is Rs. 9,000/- in absence of any document. According to him, the Judge, Family Court, has erroneously awarded Rs. 50,000/-each
to three daughters only instead of all the five daughters towards their marriage expenses. Besides, the amount awarded is too low keeping in view
their status.
Mr. Nayak, Learned counsel appearing for the respondent (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002), submitted that respondents 2& 3 are
earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from their business. The Judge, Family Court, without any document and without considering the oral evidence has
errorneously awarded very high maintenance. In a case of this nature, the petitioners are to prove that the respondent neglected them and treated
them with cruelty, which can justify their separate living.
In the instant case, PWs. 1 & 3 have categorically stated that they are living in a rented house and the respondent is not making any arrangement
for the marriage of the grown up daughters. The respondent also assaulted them and abused them in filthy language. P.W. 3 has specifically stated
about the illness of the youngest daughter and that due to lack of funds, she has not been getting proper treatment. She has further stated that the
income of the respondent is more than Rs. 15,000/- per month, P.W. 2, who is an independent witness, has only deposed about staying of the
appellants in the house of his brother on rent since 1996. Nothing substantial has been brought out from them during cross-examination to discredit
their testimony.
O.P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that many persons used to visit the petitioners though the daughters were already grown up. When he
restrained, the quarrel started. He has also stated that he is getting salary of Rs. 9.000/- per month. But no documentary evidence has been
produced with regard to his salary.
This Court has gone through the impugned judgment and considered the submissions made by the parties. It is noticed that the respondent has
not filed any documentary evidence with regard to his monthly salary. It is only his oral evidence that his monthly salary is Rs. 9,000/-. On the other
hand, the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 3 is to the effect that his monthly salary is Rs. 15,000/-. It is not improbable for an Assistant Engineer to get
salary of Rs. 15,000/-per month. Therefore, this Court does not accept the submission that the respondent earns Rs. 9,000/- per month. This
Court opines that the submission made by the appellants is more acceptable.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that the monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/-, as awarded by the
Judge, Family Court, should be enhanced to Rs. 600/-(six hundred). As regards marriage expenses, the Judge, Family Court has awarded the
same in favour of respondents 2, 3 & 4 only. But, this Court is of the view that the same should be awarded to respondents 2 to 6. As to quantum
of the marriage expenses, considering the status of the parties, their standard of living and the present market rate, this Court fixes the same at Rs.
75,000/- to be paid in favour of respondents 2 to 6.
In the result, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2002 is allowed and the judgment of the Judge, family Court, Cuttack is modified to the extent that the
respondent shall pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 6007-(six hundred) to each of the appellants, payable from the date of application. Further, he
shall pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (seventy-five thousand) to each of the appellants 2 to 6 (in CA No. 7/2002) towards their marriage expenses
within two months from today. The said amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank in their respective names. Liberty is given
to respondents 2 to 6 (in CA No. 11 of 2002) to withdraw the said amount one month prior to their marriage.
In view of the above, Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002 stands dismissed.
P.K. Tripathy, J.
I agree