AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—Though this matter is posted today for orders on interlocutory application, with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing
The Appellant, questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 6th December 2007 passed in M.C. No. 968/2001 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, has presented this appeal, so far as it relates to awarding Rs. 1,000/- per month to the Respondent towards permanent alimony during her life and a sum Rs. 1,000/- to the unmarried minor daughter until her marriage from the date of decree.
The brief facts of the case are:
The Appellant and Respondent, are the husband and wife, their marriage was solemnized on 19.4.1991 at Bangalore, and out of the said wedlock, they got one female child who is affected by polio. Thereafter, due to some differences of opinion, they could not live together as husband and wife and Respondent is now residing in her parental house. Be that as it may. The Appellant has filed a petition u/s 13(1)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Family Court. The Family Court, in turn, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file, has allowed the said petition in part and directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the Respondent towards permanent alimony during her life and monthly a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the unmarried minor daughter until her marriage from the date of the decree. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, and order passed by the Family Court, the Appellant has presented this appeal.
We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for Respondent.
After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court, we do not find any error of law, much less material irregularity as such committed by the Family Court in passing the said judgment, and order. However, it is not in dispute that the Respondent who is the wife of the Appellant and their minor daughter are entitled for reasonable amount for their maintenance. The Family Court, taking into consideration the hardship that would be caused to the Respondent and her daughter to live with dignity and honour along with others and also the cost of living, as she has no source of income, has awarded Rs. 1,000/- per month to the Respondent towards permanent alimony during her life and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the unmarried minor daughter until her marriage from the date of the decree. The said amount awarded by the Family Court is just and reasonable and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. Nor the Appellant has made out any good grounds to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed
However, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the matter was settled before the Panchayath and Appellant has given two properties to the Respondent as permanent alimony. But it is the case of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that, one property was purchased by the mother of the Respondent by paying market value for her daughter''s security and another property is not in existence as it has already been taken back by the original owner. They are not the subject matter before this Court for consideration. Therefore, we do not find any substance or merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant to entertain the relief sought in this appeal and accordingly, it is rejected.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Appellant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.