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

1998 Supreme(All) 438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BINOD KUMAR ROY, R. K. MAHAJAN
PREM CHAND PANDEY - Appellant
Versus
SAVITRI PANDEY - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL 358 Of 1996
Decided On : 04/17/1998

Advocates Appeared:
R.K.Pandey, S.K.PANDEY, S.K.Shukla

The Court held that a wife is not entitled to alimony if she is earning a salary and the husband's income is low.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 13 - DIVORCE - CRUELTY - DESERTION - INTERPRETATION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - WIFE'S CONDUCT UNREASONABLE - HUSBAND'S OFFER TO PATCH UP REJECTED - DIVORCE DENIED - RETURN OF STRIDHAN PROPERTY - SECTION 27 - APPLICATION BY WIFE - JOINT PROPERTY - INTERPRETATION - ALIMONY - WIFE EARNING - HUSBAND'S INCOME LOW - ALIMONY REDUCED.

Fact of the Case:

Wife filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and desertion by the husband. The husband contested the petition, denying the allegations and claiming that the wife had left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause. The Family Court granted a decree of divorce and awarded the wife Rs. 12,000 towards the price of a scooter and Rs. 500 per month as alimony. Both parties appealed the decision.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the wife's allegations of cruelty and desertion were not supported by the evidence. The Court noted that the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own accord and had refused the husband's offer to take her back. The Court also found that the wife was earning a salary of Rs. 2100 per month, while the husband's income was only Rs. 1150 per month after deductions. The Court held that it would be unjust to grant the wife alimony of Rs. 500 per month in these circumstances.

Issues: 1. Whether the wife's allegations of cruelty and desertion were supported by the evidence. 2. Whether the husband's offer to take the wife back was reasonable. 3. Whether the wife was entitled to alimony.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the wife's allegations of cruelty and desertion were not supported by the evidence. The Court noted that the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own accord and had refused the husband's offer to take her back. 2. The Court held that the husband's offer to take the wife back was reasonable. The Court noted that the husband had made the offer during the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C., and that the wife had refused it on the ground that she had already filed a petition for divorce. 3. The Court held that the wife was not entitled to alimony. The Court noted that the wife was earning a salary of Rs. 2100 per month, while the husband's income was only Rs. 1150 per month after deductions. The Court held that it would be unjust to grant the wife alimony of Rs. 500 per month in these circumstances.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the husband's appeal and set aside the decree of divorce. The Court dismissed the wife's appeal. The Court also set aside the Family Court's order awarding the wife Rs. 12,000 towards the price of the scooter.

R. K. MAHAJAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS common judgment disposes of these appeals.

( 2 ) IN First Appeal No. 358 of 1996 the husband has questioned the validity of the order dated 8-7-1996 passed by Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra, Family Judge, Allahabad in Matrimonial Petition No. 361 of 1991 allowing the petition of the wife filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of desertion by the husband and granting a decree of Rs. 12,000. 00 towards price of the scooter and Rs. 500. 00 as alimony per month. The wife, being not satisfied with that part of the order refusing to grant a decree in her favour in respect of other properties claimed by her, has filed First Appeal No. 337 of 1996 for setting aside the order to that extent.

( 3 ) MATRIMONIAL petition No. 6 of 1991 was filed by the wife under Section 13 of the Act alleging, inter alia, that her marriage was settled by negotiations of the parents of both sides during which served demand of dowry were made by her husband and his other family members; that as her parents wanted to discharge their liabilities of her marriage at the earliest, they any how agreed to fulfil the demands made and spent more than Rs. 80,000. 00 in the marriage and also gave several articles, ornaments and valuables (cash and kind) and her marriage was solemnized according to Hindu Vedic rites on 6-5-1987 at Allahabad; that Vidai took place on 7-5-1987 and she went to reside at the residence of her husband where she lived upto 21-6-1987; that she found her husband and his other family members greedy who made a further demand of colour T. V. Refrigerator and some other ornaments besides a cash of Rupees 10,000/-; that her father any how managed and gave Rs. 10,000. 00 in the first week of June, 1987 but could not fulfil other demands; when her parents could not fulfil the said further demand her husband and his other family members started torturing her of the pretext or the other, treated her with physical and mental cruelty including mercilessly beating; that her husband and his other family members did not agree for her Vidai from their residence but on the repeated requests of her father they anyhow agreed and on 21-6-1987 she returned to her Maika along with her father only with a suitcase containing few clothes of daily use; that her husband has kept all the articles, ornaments and valuables (cash and kind described in Schedule A, B. and C) which were given at or about the time of marriage as its consideration; that repeated attempts for her Vidai from Maika were made by her parents but her husband and his other members of the family did not agree to keep her as Bahu of their family until and unless further demands are fulfilled; that she later gathered that her husband has got illicit relations with a lady residing in the District Gaya of the State of Bihar and that he had married her only for satisfaction of the members of his family and to extract heavy amount and other valuables from her parents; that despite repeated requests her husband did not agree for her maintenance although he is working as a clerk in Civil Court, Allahabad; that the treatment of the husband has caused a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be not fit and proper for her to live with her husband, who has also deserted her for a continuous period of more than two years; thus she is entitled to get her marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and a decree for the return of the articles described in schedules A, B and C.

( 4 ) THE defence of the husband in his written statement was to this effect :- The marriage was fixed by her father and his elder brother who was friend of her father and at that time he was doing advocacy but now P. C. S. (J) Munsif-Magistrate without any dowry; that there was no exchange of any kind nor had her father had given any article or rupee to him or the members of his family either before the marriage,





















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top