Sharad Kumar Gotee vs Mangla Gotee - 1987 Supreme(MP) 558

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.A. Meo
For the Non-petitioner: V.S. Kokje

Headnote:(1) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – S.24 – wife also earning – still entitled to maintenance.
       (2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – S.24 – wife also earning – maintenance of Rs. 100/ – p.m. w.e.f. date of order should be granted as maintenance.
        Short Note
       The petitioner is a Telephone Inspector, drawing the net amount of Rs.823/ – , exclusing other deductions. By order dated 26 – 2 – 1986, the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Indore, has directed him to pay Rs. 400/ – as expenses and a maintenance allowance of Rs. 150/ – per month from the date of application, i.e. 8 – 2 – 1983, till the decision of the suit.
       2. Held: Shri Meo, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is also in Government service, serving as an Upper – Division – Teacher and she needs no maintenance allowance. It was stated that their children are grown up and married and they are not dependant on the respondent although they are living with her. The amount of maintenance is made payable from the date of application, i.e. 8 – 2 – 1983 and by now almost four years have lapsed. Shri Meo submitted that it would be too harsh for the petitioner to pay the accumulated amount of maintenance allowance. In any case, it is excessive and should be made operative from the date of the order.
       3. Shri Kokje, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this prayer in view of the fact that the petitioner has no other liability and even if the respondent – wife is serving, the petitioner – husband is bound, under the law, to maintain his wife. This proposition cannot be disputed. However, considering the fact that if the petitioner is called upon to deposit the total accumulated arrears of maintenance allowance, it would cause a great deal of hardship. It is, therefore, directed that the amount of maintenance shall be payable from 26 – 2 – 1986, the date on which the trial Court passed the impugned order. As the respondent is also serving as a teacher, the amount of maintenance is reduced from Rs. 150/ – per month to Rs. 100/ – per month. Revision partly allowed.