AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri S.K. Nigam, learned Counsel for the Defendant Respondent.
The Plaintiff husband filed a suit for divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The suit on contest was decreed by the court of first instance and permanent alimony of Rs. 4,00,000/-was granted to the Defendant wife.
Aggrieved the Plaintiff as well as Defendant wife preferred separate appeals. The appeals of both the parties were dismissed.
Now the Plaintiff husband has come up in this second appeal only on the ground that permanent alimony granted to the Defendant wife is excessive.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Appellant is that once the court below has recorded a finding that the wife is guilty of cruelty, she is not entitled for permanent alimony. The submission is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit.
The provision of grant of maintenance is a piece of social legislation therefore, the Courts are vested with wide discretion in the matter of giant of permanent alimony. So vast is the discretion that even where decree has been passed against the wife on the ground of her adultery or cruelty, the courts have allowed permanent alimony as she was found to be without means and no one to support.
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is wide enough to enable the court to grant permanent alimony to the erring wife. There is nothing in law to prevent the court from making an order of permanent maintenance in favour of the wife even if she is unsuccessful in defending the suit for divorce.
In view of the above the cruelty or desertion on part of the wife leading to the decree of divorce alone would not be a relevant criteria for refusing alimony to her. After all wife is entitle to maintain herself and there is no statutory prohibition for her from seeking maintenance from her husband or ex-husband.
In Ajay Kapoor Vs. Smt. Pramila Kapoor, their Lordships sitting in a Division Bench not only observed that provision for grant of maintenance is a social and beneficial piece of legislation but further laid down that the quantum of maintenance is essentially a question of fact which is generally beyond the scope of second appeal.
The court below after recording a finding that the Plaintiff husband is serving as a Clerk in the Insurance Company on the basis of salary drawn by him has fixed the permanent alimony.
In this view of the matter the grant of permanent alimony to the Defendant wife cannot be faulted with. The appeal has no merit and it involves no substantial question of law.
It is accordingly dismissed.