KAN SINGH, J.—This is an appeal under sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as the "Act", against an order of the learned District Judge, Merta, awarding maintenance to the wife under sec. 25 of the Act at the scale of Rs. 60/- per month consequent to the award of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under sec. 9 of the Act in favour of the wife.

2. Smt Phooli applied before the court of the learned District Judge, Merta for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband and on 10-5 67 the learned District Judge awarded a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife. It is Ex. 1 on record. No appeal was filed against that decree. Thereafter the wife made an application under sec. 25 of the Act for fixing permanent alimony. She claimed Rs 200/- P.M. The application was resisted by the husband. He admitted that a decree was given in favour of the wife for restitution of conjugal rights, but he pleaded that though he was prepared to keep her, it was the wife herself who was not coming to him.

3. The learned District Judge framed a number of issues. Some witnesses were examined by both the parties. The learned District Judge examined the plea of the husband if he Were prepared to keep the wife and for that he referred to the earlier statement of the husband wherein he stated that even if his wife were to come and live with him, he was not prepared to keep her as she was not suitable for him. He further stated that his wife was ugly faced and consequently he was not prepared to keep her. When faced with this previous statement the husband admitted that he had correctly stated so. The learned District Judge, therefore, did not accept the husbands offer as bona fide. He held that the wife whs entitled to maintenance even though she might be living separately from her husband. As regards the determination of the amount of maintenance the learned District Judge referred to the provisions of sec. 23(2) and (3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and fixed the maintenance at Rs, 60/- per month.

4. In challenging the order of the learned District Judge, learned counsel for Seetaram contends that as the husband was prepared to comply with the decree for conjugal rights awarded in favour of the wife, no separate maintenance should have been granted to the wife. Learned counsel next contended that the provisions of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 should not have been resorted to as the proceedings commenced not by a suit but by an application under sec. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Lastly, it was urged that the wife herself being a member of the cultivator class living in the villages would be earning for herself and, therefore, maintenance should not have been allowed or at any rate the amount awarded was excessive.

5. Now, so far as the offer of the husband to keep the wife is concerned, one cannot overlook the previous attitude of the husband. In his statement he had clearly stated that Smt. Phooli would not suit him as she had an ugly face and he was not prepared to keep her,. In such a situation it was necessary for the husband to satisfy the court that he was penitent for his past attitude and now he was prepared to treat his wife with all conjugal kindness. His mere word of mouth that he is now prepared to keep the wife without his further demonstrating his bona fides would not be a sufficient ground to I disentitle the wife from maintenance. I am, therefore, not inclined to disturb the conclusion reached by the learned District Judge on this aspect of the case.

6. It is true, the present proceedings starred on an application under sec. 25 of the Act and not by a suit whereunder maintenance would be claimed in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.. 1956. Nevertheless the discretion under sec. 25 of the Act vested in a court which has awarded a decree of! conjugal rights or any other decree under the Act is wider. Such

Click Here to Read the rest of this document