Shakuntala vs Pralhad Bhimrao Vhatkar

G.D. Kamat, J.—This appeal is directed against the Order dated\\31st January, 1990 rejecting the application of the Appellant instituted u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court, Bombay. The Appellant had claimed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for herself and at the same rate for her four minor children

The maintenance was contested by the husband firstly on the ground that he hasten maintaining all his four children and for that matter had even placed them in a Boarding School and further that the Appellant has not been neglected by him and on the contrary it is the Appellant who is not ready to co-habit with him. In support of her case for maintenance, the Appellant led her evidence and also that of one Narayan More (P.W.2). The Respondent husband adduced evidence of himself and that of his son Shankar. Based upon the evidence, the Learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that Appellant failed to make out any case u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for herself or for any of the minor children and that way rejected the petition.

The petition of the Appellant was based on the ground that she got married to the Respondent at Sholapur in the year 1974 and the couple made Dharavi, Bombay, as a matrimonial house. Three sons and one daughter were born out of the wedlock. The Appellant claimed that Respondent ill-treated her which was both mental as well as physical. Some allegations were also levelled against the Respondent-husband. She also claimed that sometime on 21st June, 1987 her husband assaulted her with a stick with the result she was forced to file a complaint at Dharavi Police Station. The respondent-husband became angry and that is how she was driven out of the matrimonial house. She also asserted that gold ornaments were removed by her husband before she was made shelterless. According to her, her husband is carrying on business in Leather goods and earn substantially to the extent of Rs. 10.000/- per month and otherwise has sufficient means to maintain her and the children.

From the evidence produced on record it transpired that the Appellant has taken charge of the entire matrimonial house at Dharavi and it is common ground that presently she is all alone in charge and occupation of the same. It has been mentioned across the bar that the Appellant in fact has let out three different units to three families with a result that the Appellant gets large income by way of rents. The fact, however, remains and it transpires from the evidence on record that all the four children are no more with the Appellant and the Appellant also does not seriously dispute to-day before this Court that Respondent looks after the four children including their educational needs. Hence the question of granting maintenance to them does not arise.

Apart from this it also transpires that Appellant had herself engaged in some business with the assistance of P.W.2 Narayan More wherein she was selling sarees and blouse pieces. However, we are told today that the business is no longer continued. To certain queries raised by the Court, Appellant admitted that she has a locker in Bank and she also has an Account in Abhyudaya Bank, Bombay. We have particularly read the evidence tendered by the Respondent-husband and also the son of the Appellant by name Shankar. Referring to the evidence on record it does not appear to be a case where Respondent-husband has failed to maintain his wife and/or neglected her. We are, therefore, unable to read any infirmity in the impugned Judgment and Order. But then it must be seen that the Appellant is left all alone to herself. It appears that the children are not even ready to show any love and affection to the Appellant. The Appellant looks to be around 40 years of age. It may be possible for her to do some odd job at this age or engage herself in a business as she was engaged at sometime. But when age advances, it may not be possible father to earn anything so as to maintain herself. It is in that view of the matter, we reel and having regard to the facts that the Respondent-husband is in business, a direction can be made him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/-per month. We, however, make it clear that the maintenance directed by this Order is only prospective and the same shall be made payable from April, 1996 onwards. The result being the maintenance of Rs. 350/- for the month of April, 1996 shall be paid on or before 15th April, 1996 and thereafter before the 15th of each and every succeeding month. The Appellant to furnish her Bank Account number and the Respondent has agreed to credit the maintenance awarded from month to month in that Banking Account.

Impugned Order dated 31st January, 1990 is set aside and appeal is partly allowed. Though the conclusions of the Trial Court are not disturbed the maintenance is awarded at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month and to be paid as directed in the earlier paragraph.