SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Guj) 95

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.A.MEHTA
VIHALAL MANGALDAS PATEL - Appellant
Versus
MAIBEN VIHALAL PATEL - Respondent
Civil Revision 1049 of 1990
Decided On : 03/31/1994

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Employment and service matter – Cadre – Pay scale – Challenged – Prayed that he should be offered the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 – Petitioner has by this petition under Art. 226 of Constitution of India challenged action of the respondents in placing the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600 from the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 – Petitioner was initially appointed as Forest Surveyor in the pay scale of rs. 1,200-1,800, and thereafter he was promoted as Range Forest Officer surveyor – There are two different cadres of Range Forest Officers, i. e. (i) range Forest Officer (Survey) and (ii) Range Forest Officer. Admittedly the petitioner belongs to the cadre of Range Forest Officer (Survey ) – Held, It is stated before this Court that under such re-fixed salary under the revised pay scale number of Range Forest officers (Survey) have retired with higher pay fixed which would result into pensionary benefit to such retired employees while the petitioner and other similarly situated persons who still continue in service would be deprived of such benefit. In the opinion of this Court this fact has no relevance whatsoever for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether the petitioner and other similarly situated persons are entitled to higher pay scale or not – Once the claim of the petitioner for higher pay scale is not accepted the consequences must follow, but at the same time it is recommended that since the petitioner and other similarly situated Range forest Officers (Survey) have already received higher salary because of wrong fixation of pay while ordering refixation of their salary Government may consider their case sympathetically and favourably so as not to order any recovery of excess amounts received by them under pay scale fixed by the Government by mistake – Employees who have received such higher emoluments must have adjusted themselves to live with such higher emoluments and must have used such higher emoluments for their changed need – In that view of matter, recovery of such amount would act very harsh on such employees, and hence, it is recommended that the Govt. may consider their case sympathetically – Action of respondents in refixing the pay of the petitioner in pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600 is upheld subject to rider that respondents shall, before undertaking such exercise, afford opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after taking into consideration respresentation of the petitioner shall refix his salary in appropiate pay scale – Directions issued – Petition partly allowed.

MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner and the opponent were husband and wife married in the year 1962. In 1971, it appears that they were living in Poona and the wife left him. The husband had filed H. M. P. No. 124 of 1971 in the Civil Court at poona and an ex parte decree for divorce came to be passed on 12-9-1977. In appeal, the Bombay High Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter. After the remand, again decree for divorce came to be passed on 9-9-1985. The wife preferred m. C. A. No. 573 of 1985 of setting aside that decree. However, the trial Court rejected the same. Therefore, the wife preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 383 of 1989 in the District Court at Poona and applied for interim relief and the appellate Court granted stay of the execution of the decree passed by the trial Court.

( 2 ) IN the meantime, the wife had filed the Criminal Misc. Application No. 47 of 1989 under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code in the Criminal court at Kalol and by an order dated 29-5-1990, she has been granted maintenance from the husband at the rate of Rs. 450. 00 per month from 14-2-1989. It is stated that this amount is now Rs. 500. 00 per month and this amount is being paid to her. The wife also filed Civil Misc. Application No. 101 of 1987 in the Civil court at Mehsana for maintenance under Sec. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, 1956 and she also filed an application Ex. 6 for interim maintenance. The trial Court granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/ - per month inclusive of the maintenance awarded by the Criminal Court under sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, there is additional maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300. 00 per month. It is this amount which is the subject-matter of the present proceeding.

( 3 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner-husband submits that Sec. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 applies only in a case where a marriage is subsisting and the wife continues to have the status of a wife. After the divorce, she is not entitled to any maintenance under Sec. 18 of the Act. Secondly, it is submitted that the husband having obtained a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion by the wife, the wife is not entitled to any maintenance from the husband.

( 4 ) SECTION 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 reads as follows :-"18. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. (2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintainance- (a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoing her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or of wilfully neglecting her; (b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband; (c) if he is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy; (d) if he has any other wife living; (e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere; (f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; (g) if there is any other cause justifying her living separately. (3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste of ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion. "

( 5 ) ON bare reading of this provision, it is submitted that only a wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband and, therefore, it is submitted that the relationship of wife and husband must be subsisting.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that a Hindu wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband during her life time and not only during the life time of marriage and the subsistence of marriage, and it is submitted








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top