The court emphasized that unless a wife is guilty of unchastity or adultery, she cannot be deprived of alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and order dt. 28-8-1981 passed by the Principal city Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, in M. C. No. 38 of 1980 on his file, awarding Rs. 400 per month to the wife from the date of the decre? of divorce as Alimony from the husband.

( 2 ) THERE has been dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce between the parties in this proceeding on 2-8-1979. and thereafter the wife instituted the present petition for alimony against her husband claiming Rs. 600 per month towards alimony. She averred that the husband was getting Rs. 3,000 by way of rent per month and that the amount claimed by her is necessary for her maintenance in these hard days. The husband resisted the petition. According to him, he was not getting that much of rent from buildings. He was living with his mother and he shared the rental income with his mother, besides, his wife was having a car which she was using as a taxi, she was also earning by way of giving tution and therefore he submitted that her petition for alimony should be dismissed. He also raised objection in regard to her conduct in not obtaining restitution of conjugal rights.

( 3 ) DURING hearing, the wife examined herself and so also the husband. The trial Court appreciating the evidence on record held that the evidence on record proved that the husband was getting Rs. 2,800 rental per month and in that view taking into consideration all the aspects, awarded rs. 400 per month towards alimony. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the husband has instituted the above appeal before this Court.

( 4 ) THE learned advocate appearing for the appellant strenuously urged before us that having regard to the conduct of the petitioner-wife as also her capacity for earning and the fact that she was having a car which was used as a taxi and also taking into consideration the fact that she was giving tution to students, she could at best be awarded bare maintenance amounting to not more than Rs. 225 per month. As againt that, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent- wife argued supporting the judgment and order of the Principal City Civil judge. The Sole point therefore that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the alimony awarded at Rs. 400 per month by the trial court is just and proper.

( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge in the course of his lengthy order has discussed about the income of the husband as well as of the wife. Relying on exhibit P2 partition deed between the husband and his mother, he has come to the conclusion that the building which has been allotted to the share of the husband has been let out to Indian overseas Bank, which fetches monthly rental of Rs. 2,000. The upstairs of the building was let out to one veigas for Rs. 800 per month. The learned Civil Judge after discussing the evidence on record has held that the upstairs is let out to Rs. 800 per month and thus he has fixed the earning of the husband at Rs. 2,800 per month disbelieving the version of the wife that the garage is also let out for Rs. 200 per month,

( 6 ) ADVERTING to the income of the wife, the learned Civil Judge has disbelieved the version of the husband that she is having a car which was used as a taxi and that she is earning by way of tution. It is in this view that the learned Civil Judge has fixed the alimony at Rs. 400 per month.

( 7 ) SO far as the rental from the bank is concerned, it is admitted even by the husband that he receives Rs. 2,000 per month. He disputed the ren: tal from veigas with regard to the upstairs of the building. The evidence placed on record, in addition to the evidence of the wife herself, is the Telephone directory In which the name of veigas is shown as owning a phone in the upstairs. Wife has further averred that her husband used to receive rents from Veigas through cheque which he credited In Indian Overseas Bank. The learned Civil Judge has drawn adverse inference against the h