Puttalaxmamma vs Narasimha Setty

B.S. Patil, J.—These two revision petitions arise out of the order dated 29.01.2014 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 73/2013. By the said order, the Court below has awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- in favour of the wife from the date of petition through out her life. R.P.F.C. No. 121/2014 is filed by the wife urging that the amount awarded is too less and does not enable her to meet the basic minimum necessities that are required to be met to sustain herself in life. R.P.F.C. No. 81/2014 is filed by the husband aggrieved by the award of maintenance.

Marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 1974. They did not live together for long time. On account of the dispute that arose between them, husband filed M.C. No. 12/1977. The said petition was disposed of based on a compromise whereunder wife has received a sum of Rs. 9,000/-. It is not in dispute that decree of divorce has not been granted in favour of the husband. It is also not forthcoming from the order passed in M.C. No. 12/1977 that the amount of Rs. 9,000/- paid was in full and final settlement of the claim of the wife towards maintenance. However, fact remains that wife has not joined her husband and she continued to stay separately and therefore, husband has taken a second wife and has established his family and continued to live separately.

Wife has kept quiet till 2013 without laying any claim either for maintenance or for restitution of conjugal rights. During 2013, she has filed Crl. Misc. 73/2013 seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. This petition was resisted by the husband. He has contended that wife did not stay with him for long time after marriage and that their relationship as husband and wife has been severed and for all practical purposes, after obtaining an amount of Rs. 9,000/- towards maintenance, she started staying separately and therefore, there is no legal obligation on his part to pay any maintenance. At any rate, according to the contention of the husband, he himself is a retired teacher, required to maintain himself and his second wife and at such advanced age, out of the meager pension he is receiving in a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, it was difficult for him to pay any amount of maintenance to the wife/revision petitioner.

The Court below, having considered the respective contentions, has passed the order under challenge granting maintenance in a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the wife from the date of petition throughout her life along with litigation expenses of Rs. 2,500/-.

I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. On perusal of the entire materials on record, I find that though both parties had settled their dispute way back in the year 1977 and the husband has paid Rs. 9,000/- to the wife towards her maintenance, there is nothing to show that the said settlement resulted in severance of their status by passing a decree of divorce or that the said settlement tantamounted to permanent solution between both parties regarding their dispute.

It is true, having obtained a sum of Rs. 9,000/- way back in the year 1977, she has stayed away from the company of the husband and the husband has remarried and has settled down and has since retired. Both of them are now aged. But, the fact remains that their marital status as husband and wife has continued. Therefore, it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife, particularly when the wife is not in a position to sustain herself. There is no material on record to show that wife has got any other income or avocation to support herself. On the other hand, admittedly, husband is a retired teacher and is receiving pension of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, he is required to maintain his wife even though wife has stayed separately from 1977 and has not made any claim regarding maintenance because that does not mean that the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife has ceased.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/wife, because of the age and associated ailment, wife has been constrained to seek maintenance from her husband. The Court below has, however, awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month towards maintenance on the ground that in view of the settlement of the dispute between them earlier in the year 1977, whereunder the wife had received Rs. 9,000/- coupled with the fact that she did not make any claim and did not join her husband till 2013, it was not a case for grant of maintenance as of right.

I do not find this reasoning of the Court below just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Though the fact remains that wife has not come back to her husband and that there is no proof of the fact that he had treated her with cruelty while she decided to stay away from him, it transpires that admittedly, husband has taken the second wife and settled down. Therefore, being a legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, she is entitled for maintenance.

As regards quantum of maintenance to be awarded, in my view, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and the advanced age of the respondent - husband and his status as a retired teacher and his obligation to maintain himself and other dependents, I am of the view that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month would be just and reasonable amount to be awarded as maintenance. This amount of Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid with effect from the date of petition. Accordingly, R.P.F.C. No. 121/2014 filed by the wife is partly allowed. R.P.F.C. No. 81/2014 filed by the husband is dismissed. Costs of the proceedings deposited before this Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the wife/revision petitioner.