UMESHCHANDRA vs SHEEL.

[1] This matter was taken up for hearing from time to time. On 12.12.2017, this Court passed the following order :-

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks time to get instructions from his client about the payment of some lump-sum amount towards the

marriage expenses of his daughter.

As prayed, list the matter after four weeks.

[2] On 23.1.2018, when the matter was taken up, it was directed to be listed on 24.1.2018 as first item.

[3] On 24.1.2018, this Court made the following order:-

In spite of our efforts to settle the matter, the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by appellant is not willing to increase more than Rs.10,00,000/-

offered towards the expenses of the marriage of the daughter.

On perusal of the record and as per the stand of the respondent so far in the last 20 years, the respondent has not been paid any single penny towards

maintenance by the appellant.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the appellant has two flats in Nashik and apart from that, the appellant owns some

agricultural properties as well.

Under the circumstances, we give a last chance to learned counsel for the appellant to get instructions whether the appellant is agreeable to share one

flat out of two flats to his daughter.

List the matter after one week.

[4] On 21.3.2018, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, on instructions, submitted that the appellant has agreed to pay Rs.20,00,000/-

(Rupees twenty lakhs only) towards full and final settlement, i.e. permanent alimony as well as expenses towards the marriage of the daughter.

However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent wife submitted that the respondent wants that the above amount be increased.

[5] This matter was again listed on 4th April, 2018, when no one was present on behalf of the respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the

appellant to obtain instructions, this Court directed to list the matter on 11th April, 2018. The matter was not taken up on that day. Today, when the

matter came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not willing to pay even the agreed amount of

Rs.20,00,000/-.

[6] We have also gone through the record placed before us and taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case. The material on record shows

that during the trial also, the appellant deviated from his stand. In his chief examination, the appellant expressed willingness to take the respondent with

him and resume cohabitation, provided she withdrew the complaint filed against him before JMFC, Nashik. But at the time of his cross-examination,

he deviated from the earlier stand and was not ready to take her with him even if she withdrew the complaint.

[7] It appears that the respondent-wife filed the complaint under Section 498-A, immediately after her departure from the matrimonial home on

11.5.1997, when, admittedly, she was mother of eight month old child. There is also no denial to the fact that the respondent-wife had not filed any

petition for maintenance till 23.8.2001. In other words, for about five years after her departure, the respondent-wife, did not claim maintenance for her

child.

[8] We are informed that the daughter born out of the wedlock of the parties has grown up and she is about 22 years old at present and the

Respondent-wife is looking up for her marriage alliances.

[9] Taking into consideration the conduct of the appellant as also the merits of the case, in our opinion, there is no ground to interfere with the order

passed by the High Court.

[10] The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to the dismissal of this appeal, pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No

costs.