The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in determining custody, and the maintenance amount should be reasonable and enable the wife to maintain the same standard of living as she would have with her husband.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises interesting questions in the context of strained family life of husband and wife. The plea of wife appellant is that she is entitled to the company of husband who is an engineer at the places of his posting. Her repeated grievance is that she wants company of her husband at Sillgudl where he is presently posted, to enjoy the marital rites. The plea of husband respondent is that the wife should reside at his parents house and he cannot take her at different places of his posting. There is one more factor in this case which come Up during the negotiations held in our Chambers as required under the Statute, that the husband is not ready and willing even to have a separate residential accommodation at Agra where he has settled whereas the wife is ready to live with the husband even in small accommodation. Thus, the main question for determination by this Court is whether in the circumstances narrated above, the conduct of husband amount to desertion and cruelty?

( 2 ) THE trial court has passed decree of divorce believing the version of husband to be correct and has granted maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month to the wife.

( 3 ) THE second question involved in this appeal is whether the wife is entitled to get custody of the child, namely, Anupam Shah (alias Shrenik Shah) aged about 4 years at the time of filing of the plaint who is presently living with his real maternal uncle and is getting education there. The wife appellant is living at Loharia with her brother.

( 4 ) THE husband respondent is an Engineer. His two wives died earlier on account of different reasons which will be stated later on. Similarly, the wife appellant had also given divorce to her former husband on the ground of impotency.

( 5 ) THE appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment dated 9. 9. 96 passed by the Judge, family Court, Agra granting decree of divorce and allowing the custody of the child to the respondent, the father and granting maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month to the wife appellant.

( 6 ) IN is not disputed that the marriage took place between the parties in accordance with Hindu rites at Agra on 17th July. 1986 and after having a peaceful married life for some time, a male child was born on 8th May, 1987. namely, Anupam Shah. The version of husband respondent is that the wifes pressure was to persuade the husband respondent to live separately from his parent to which he did not agree. She created problems in the house by way of abusing the parents and other members of family. She used to threaten the family members to implicate in false criminal cases. She did not spare even her husband from using derogatory language, it is alleged that while the husband was posted at Sillgudi. she left the house for her parents house without permission of husband or his family members. He sent his close relations, i. e. . brother-in-law, sisters and friends to bring her back but she did not return back. Later on. since the wife has withdrew from the society of husband without reasonable excuse, hence he moved a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. Thereafter the petition under Section 9 was converted into petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and it is also alleged that the said conversion of the petition was allowed with the consent of wife. It appears that an other application was also filed by the husband for the custody of the child.

( 7 ) THE wife appellant has denied desertion and cruelty on her part to the husband. She has stated that prior to her marriage with the respondent, he had married one Smita of Kanpur and treated her with cruelty as a result of which that marriage was dissolved. Thereafter he again married one Anna of Jaipur who died in suspicious circumstances at the house of the respondent. In her statement the wife appellant has denied to have pressurised her husband respondent to live separately from his parents and has stated that sh