AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition is filed by the husband - respondent in C.Mis. No.133/2013 filed by the wife - petitioner therein seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/-. The court below by the order dated 31.12.2013 was pleased to award monthly maintenance of Rs.6,500/- to the wife.
The facts of the case are that marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 16.12.1982. They led a happy married life for a period of 8 years. There are no issues out of the wedlock. However, the petitioner without the consent of the respondent married for the second time one B Sumangala on 23.7.1993 and thereafter started ill-treating the respondent. In spite of it, the respondent continued to live with the petitioner, but the same is of no avail. Due to the ill- treatment the respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home and started to live with her father. The petitioner has totally neglected the respondent to maintain her. It is stated, the petitioner is having sufficient source of income working in BESCOM and getting a salary of more than Rs.20,000/- p.m. and having landed properties and he is getting an income of more than Rs.10 lakhs per year. The petitioner gave an evasive reply to the legal notice caused by the respondent. The respondent is not at all in a position to maintain herself.
The petitioner appeared before the court below and filed objections. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent is admitted. The further averments as to marrying for the second time without consent and illtreatment after the second marriage which forced the respondent to leave the matrimonial house are denied. It is stated, after 11 years after the marriage, there was no issue thereby the respondent forced the petitioner to get marry for the second time. After the second marriage, the respondent lived happily with the petitioner and the second wife and there was no misunderstanding between them. Through the second wife, the petitioner got two children and one son is studying, he is physically handicapped and 2nd son is also studying. The petitioner is spending more than Rs.5000/- p.m. towards medical treatment of his two children. Since the petitioner and his family members are suffering from diseases, the respondent was not willing to serve them. She herself left the company of the petitioner taking all her belongings on 12.9.2011. The petitioner has insured the respondent''s life with LIC and he is paying the premium regularly. It is stated, in the circumstances, the petitioner is not in a position to maintain the respondent.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent had no cause of action to file the petition seeking maintenance. She was never ill-treated. Her life was insured with LIC of India with two insurance policies and he is paying the premium. He has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the court below is on the higher side. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the court below.
The point that arises for consideration is, whether the court below has committed any irregularity in awarding maintenance of Rs.6,500/- to the respondent - wife? My answer would be in the negative for the following reasons.
The relationship between the petitioner and respondent is admitted. Admittedly, the petitioner has married for the second time. It is the case of the respondent that after the second marriage, she was being ill-treated. The respondent was examined as PW-1 and PW-2 her father in support of her case. The petitioner has not placed any materials to show that after the respondent started living with her father, he has made any efforts to take her back to his house. This shows that the petitioner has neglected to maintain the respondent.
The petitioner is working in BESCOM and is drawing salary. The petitioner has admitted in his cross-examination as observed by the court below that he is getting salary of Rs.40,000/- p.m. and after deduction he is getting Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner contends that he has to spend for educational expenses and medical treatment. Considering all these aspects, the court below was pleased to quantify the maintenance at Rs.6,500/- per month. I am of the view that the maintenance determined by the court below is perfectly justified and there is no irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered.
In the result, this petition fails and it is accordingly rejected.