AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
18 paragraphs · 388 wordsR.L. Anand, J.—This F.A.O. has been directed against the order dated 19.9.2000, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge,
Rohtak, who, awarded a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month as permanent alimony to Smt. Raj Bala ex-wife of the appellant with effect from 16.4.1998
to 25.8.1999, for the reasons broadly given in para No. 15 of the impugned judgment which is reproduced as under :-
Respondent contracted the Second marriage. He as (RW2) himself stated it. He stated that in the salary he gets he has to maintain his wife,
old aged parents and sister''s son as his mother expired immediately after giving birth and father contracted the second marriage. No doubt, the
respondent owes social and moral responsibility to take care of his old aged parents etc. But he is also legally and morally bound to support his
divorcee wife, particularly, when she is without any means of livelihood. She cannot be made to live on the mercy of others and ains (alms ?).
Keeping in view the status of the parties, income of the respondent escalating prices of every commodity. I feel that Rs. 2500/- a month are
required by the petitioner for her living and the respondent can conveniently pay this much amount to her as permanent alimony. This issue is
accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner cites 1983 PLR 672, Sarla Devi v. Om Parkash Madan and submits that since respondent Smt. Raj Bala
is a highly qualified lady, a reasonable inference can always be drawn that she can maintain herself. In the present case, it is proved on the record
that appellant is earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. He has remarried. He is supposed to maintain his old parents, second wife and his sister''s son.
The maintaining of these people by the appellant does not mean that he can ignore his ex-wife Smt. Raj Bala. Respondent is an educated lady.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that she is in a position to earn something for herself, even then I do not think that the amount of permanent
alimony awarded by the trial Court, is in any way excessive, illogical, harsh or irrational. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the
same is hereby dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.