AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court which has awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife.
For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to the original suit.
Plaintiff Smt. Nagarathina was married to the defendant Chandrashekharaiah on 09.02.1979. A daughter and a son were born to them The daughter is married and she is living happily with her husband The son is studying. The respondent is a Government Official working in Fisheries Department. The grievance of the plaintiff was that he had illicit connection with one Nagarathnamma. After her death he had illicit connection with one Siddamma. He is not in the habit of coming to the house at all. He has neglected the plaintiff and her children. He has pot cared for the elders who convened a panchayath and called upon him to change his attitude. In fact when the said facts was brought to the notice of the higher authorities he agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/- towards maintenance. The plaintiff needs a sum of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. towards maintenance of herself and her son''s educational expenses. In the year 2006, the respondent retired from services. He got a substantial amount by way of retirement benefit. He is spending that money towards the ladies with whom he has got illicit connection. He also owns agricultural lands and he is getting an income of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. from the said lands. He is enjoying his resources without discharging his legal obligation to the plaintiff and her son and therefores, she filed a petition for maintenance claiming a sum of Rs. 6,000/-.
After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections contesting the claim. He did not dispute the marriage and birth of the children, marriage of the daughter and the fact that he retired. It is the case that he has no illicit connection with anyone. He has spent about Rs. 2 lakhs for undergoing a heart operation. He is living alone. He is getting a pension of Rs. 10,000/-. He is not getting any income from agricultural land. The respondent has not incurred any expenditure towards medical expenses or educational expenses of her son. He is entitled to the benefit of retire mental benefits and therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit.
On the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following four issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. from the defendant No. 1?
2) Whether the Court can restrain defendant No. 1 from withdrawing the retirement benefits?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled pr permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No. 2 not to settle the service benefits of defendant No. 1?
4) To what relief the parties are entitled?
The petitioner to substantiates her claim examined herself as PW.1 and produced 9 documents winch are marked as Exs. P1 to P9. The respondent was examined as DW.1 and he has produced in all about 24 documents which are marked as Exs. D1 to D24.
The Trial Court on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record held that the defendant owns irrigated agricultural land which is yielding income. He is also getting pension of Rs. 9,027/- and Rs. 2,75,000/- by way of retire mental benefit. In these circumstances, when the plaintiff has to take care of herself and her son who is studying, it was of the view that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- would be appropriate amount to be awarded as maintenance. Accordingly, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and decres contended that though RTC extracts are act marked in the case, the Trial Court has looked into these RTC extracts and has come to the conclusion that the defendant is the owner of the lands, which is factually incorrect. Most of the lands did not stand in the name of the respondent. The lands which stands in his name if not yielding any income. He is retired and is getting pension of Rs. 9,027/- and he has already undergone one surgery to the heart. Be needs money for medical treatment. In these circumstances award of Rs. 5,000/- towards maintenance that too from the date of the suit is illegal and seeks for setting aside the name.
Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent supported the impugned order.
In the light of the aforesaid facts and riwal contentions, the point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,-
Whether the award of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- by the Family Court is unjustified?
The facts are not in dispute. The relation between the parties is admitted. The eldest daughter is married and the youngest son is still college going. The plaintiff has no independent income of her own. The defendant being a Government servant was moving from place to place. He has not taken care of the plaintiff and her son. The plaintiff has to complain to his Higher Authorities about his negligence as well as extra marital relationship with several women. It is her specific case that after mutual compromise, he agreed to pay Rs. 3,500/- p.m., even without any order from a competent Court. How the respondent is retired from his services, He is getting pension of Rs. 10,000/-. In fact, learned counsel made available to the RTC showing what are the properties which are standing in the name of the defendant.
We have gone through evidence and admissions made by the defendant, where he has categorical admitted that he has got 4 items of property by a partition and he has acquired 4 items of property out of his own funds. They are irrigated lands. In nature of things it is not possible for the plaintiff to produce evidence to show that what was the income he was deriving form the said lands. The Court has awarded a modest income having regard to the fact that these lands are having irrigation facility. That apart the respondent also received substantial amount by way of retiremental benefits. He has not made any effort to takes care of his wife and take care of his son and now he is pleading that his health is failing and he need enormous amount to take care of his health. In fact taking into consideration all these aspects and the admissions made by the defendant in his evidence and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has awarded a modest amount of Rs. 5,000/- which is a bare requirement for two persons, wife and son, who is still college going, In these circumstances, we do not see any justification to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court.
No merit. Dismissed.