Sri Srinivasa Gowda vs Smt. Bhagyamma

Jawad Rahim, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 11.6.2010 in C. Misc. 271/07 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Mysore, directing the Petitioner to pay Rs. 2,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the Respondent. The petition is posted for admission. Along with the petition, Misc. Cvl. 14437/10 seeking stay of the impugned order is also listed.

Heard.

Not in dispute is the fact that Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent. Matrimony is more than two decades old. It is alleged that matrimony did not work; Respondent had to take refuge in her parents'' home who are now maintaining her. She lodged a petition u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the Petitioner on the premise that he is having sufficient income and is possessed of movable and immovable properties. Alleging that from the year 1984 when the marriage was performed, she has discharged all marital obligations, but the Petitioner has failed to maintain her, and that he has willfully ill-treated and harassed her, she sought maintenance. It is also averred that 8 years ago she was abandoned by the Petitioner and she has since been staying with her parents who find it difficult to maintain her.

The Petitioner entered appearance and resisted the proceedings denying all allegations and contending that there was a Panchayat held in the village in which he returned all her jewellery given at the time of marriage and also paid Rs. 25,000/- as one-time payment in satisfaction of her claim for future alimony. He also alleged that he has no income to maintain her.

The learned trial judge, considering the evidence on record, held that willful neglect is established. The capacity of the Respondent-husband is evident and circumstances justify grant of maintenance to the Respondent. While doing so, the learned judge has held that Rs. 25,000/- paid by the husband cannot be treated as substantial amount to make provision for future alimony. Therefore, while quantifying maintenance at Rs. 2,000/- p.m. the learned judge has directed that Rs. 25,000/- be deducted from the amount payable by the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel assailed the said finding and the order on the basis that the trial judge having noticed payment of Rs. 25,000/- to the wife in the Panchayat held in the village, the petition should have been dismissed as not maintainable. He would contend that the Petitioner has no income or any source and therefore, cannot pay Rs. 2,000/- p.m. It is also alleged that the Respondent has an independent source of. income which Is enough for her maintenance.

For ail these contentions, I find no support from the evidence on record. So far as the Respondent-wife is concerned, she has taken refuge in her parents'' house who are maintaining her.

It is material to note the age of the parties. The marriage is of the year 1984 and on the date of filing of the petition, Respondent-wife was aged 45 years and the Petitioner 50 years old. At this age, re-marriage is our of question. Undoubtedly, Respondent has taken refuge in her parents'' house whose capacity is not spoken to by the Petitioner. Even otherwise, it is the obligation of the husband who undoubtedly is an able-bodied man, possessed of movable and immovable properties. Besides, payment of Rs. 25,000/- even if accepted as the amount paid after settlement between the parties, cannot be taken as the amount providing for future maintenance.

It is well settled that the amount paid as one-time payment should be substantial so as to make provision for future alimony. Rs. 25,000/- can hardly be considered as sufficient to cater for future alimony. The amount paid should not be illusory but has to be realistic, taking into consideration the requirement of the person who seeks maintenance. The sum of Rs. 25,000/- under no circumstance can absolve the Petitioner of liability to pay maintenance. Therefore all the contentions are rejected.

the order impugned is reasonable and is the result of correct appreciation of facts and evidence which Is affirmed. The petition stands dismissed. Consequently, Misc. Cvl. 14437/10 for stay is rejected.