Shrawan Raoji Kohade vs Meera

V.A. Naik, J.

By this family court appeal, the appellant Shrawan challenges the judgment of the Family Court dated 27.08.2004 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent Meerabai towards maintenance, in addition to a sum of Rs. 500/- per month, payable to the respondent Meerabai under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Respondent Meerabai was married to appellant Shrawan according to Hindu rites and customs. According to Meerabai, Shrawan started ill-treating her after 15 days of marriage. Meerabai pleaded in the petition filed by her under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act that Shrawan threw her out of the house within four years and she is residing separately since 1983. The petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act was filed in the year 1999 and it was stated therein that she had also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which Shrawan was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- every month. Meerabai had pleaded that she had no source of income and Shrawan was having a huge income. Meerabai claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month for her maintenance and Rs. 10,000/- towards the litigation expenses.

Shrawan filed the written statement and denied the claim of Meerabai. According to Shrawan, Meerabai was earning. It was pleaded by Shrawan that she was serving in Wardha Municipal Council as a Typist before her marriage. It was pleaded that Meerabai was doing the job of Typist in various Institutions for several years and was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month. It was pleaded that she was additionally earning a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month, as a Mediator. Also, according to Shrawan, Meerabai was getting an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month by working at Mangalwadi and Paunar Gramodoyag. It was pleaded that she was getting a sum of Rs. 500/- per month towards interest and her minimum income was Rs. 4,000/- per month. Shrawan admitted that he was working as an Insurance Agent. However, he denied that he was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. He pleaded that he was very poor at the time of his marriage, but his financial condition improved subsequently. It was pleaded that he had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to Meerabai and has discharged his obligation towards her. Shrawan pleaded that Meerabai was physically fit and she could earn for her livelihood. It was pleaded that he was 66 years of age at the time of filing of the petition and was unable to earn at that age. The parties examined themselves and their witnesses and on an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Family Court, by the judgment dated 27.08.2004, partly allowed the petition filed by Meerabai and directed Shrawan to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to her towards maintenance under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, in addition to the maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month payable to Meerabai under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Shri Sirpurkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shrawan, challenged the order of the Family Court and submitted that the Family Court was not justified in directing Shrawan to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/-per month to Meerabai towards maintenance in addition to a sum of Rs. 500/-per month payable under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that Shrawan was 66 years of age at the time of filing of the petition and did not have any source of income at that time. It was stated that Shrawan ceased to work as Insurance Agent subsequently and was not in a position to pay even a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to Meerabai. It is stated that the Family Court has not appreciated the evidence in the right perspective while directing Shrawan to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month to Meerabai. The learned counsel sought for the modification of the judgment.

On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant Shrawan and on a perusal of the record and proceedings, it appears that the following points arise for determination in this family court appeal.

"[1] Whether the Family Court was justified in directing appellant Shrawan to pay an additional a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent Meerabai under Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage and Maintenance Act.?

[2] What order.?"

On a reading of the evidence and on a perusal of the judgment, it appears that the Family Court was justified in directing appellant Shrawan to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent Meerabai towards maintenance. The Family Court found that Shrawan was earning Rs. 13,000/-per month as an Insurance Agent and from the immovable property. Several documents were considered by the Family Court to hold that Shrawan was earning at least an amount of Rs. 13,000/- per month. The Family Court found that Shrawan owned a house and agricultural land at his native place and could provide maintenance to Meerabai. The Family Court found that several statements made by Shrawan were incorrect and he was earning at least a sum of Rs. 13,000/- per month. The Family Court rightly refused to grant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to Meerabai towards the maintenance as the Family Court found that Meerabai could maintain herself reasonably well after receiving a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month from Shrawan, which included the amount of Rs. 500/-per month, that was payable to Meerabai in the proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment of the Family Court appears to be proper. The Family Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that Meerabai was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month towards maintenance and since Shrawan had no dependency, he could have spared some amount for Meerabai. The Family Court has arrived at a correct finding in regard to the amount of monthly maintenance payable to Meerabai. We find that payment of Rs. 2,500/- by Shrawan to Meerabai towards the monthly maintenance is most appropriate. The judgment of the Family Court is not liable to be interfered with.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Family Court Appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.