BHANU KUMARI Vs. RAKASAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit the question involved involved is as to how much amount should be fixed as maintenance for the plaintiff I to 3 who have been deserted by the defendant, who is a Medical Pactitioner. The facts giving rise to this suit are as under :

(2.) Plaintiff No. 1 is the daughter of the former ruler of Alwar His Highness Swai Tej Singhji of Alwar. Defendant is the son of late His Highness Ram Singh of Pratapgarh. Plaintiff No I and defendant were married at Alwar according to Hindu rites on 24th November, 1969. Parties lived at Indore from 1969 to 1972. From the wedlock plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 were born on 2nd January, 19/1 and 18th June, 1972 respectively. In the year 1973-74 the defendant had taken the internship and house job in Safd arjung Hospital. New Delhi. From September, 1974 to September, 1975 the defendant was posted as Senior Resident House Officer in General Surgery. He set up a medical clinic at Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi from December, 1978 to July, 1979. The defendant worked in Dr P. N. Behi's Skin Institute, New Delhi as General Medical Officer, la October, 1979 the defendant went to England for E.C.- F.M.G. Examination. He was in England till July. 1982. On his return to India the parties stayed in Delhi from 1982 to 1986. In July 1986 the defendant deserted the plaintiff No. 1 and refused to maintain her and children and shifted to Indore. After July, 1986 the parties have not stayed together. Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant wanted to marry one Bhuvneshwari Kumari @ Candy, niece of plaintiff No. 1 and that could be the motive of deserting the plaintiffs. The present suit for maintenance was instituted by the plaintiffs on 23rd January, 1988. Despite service the defendant did not choose to appear in the suit and as such she was set ex parte by the order of this court dated 8th December, 1988.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. He has taken me through the evidence adduced in the matter as also the documents. The plaintiff No. I appearing as her own witness stated that her monthly expenses are to the tune of Rs. 10,000.00 to Rs 12,000.00 per month. She has further stated that part of the house in which she is staying has been let out for a sum of Rs. 3200.00 per month In so far as the income of the defendant No. 1 is concerned she 215 has not been able to say with any amount of certainty as to what is the monthly income from his profession and the property which are owned by him. however, it is stated by her that defendant earns Rs. 40.000.00 to Rs: 50,000.00 per annum from his agricultural land and Rs. 1080.00 per month as rental income from the first floor of his house at Partapgarh. Besides he is earning quite handsome amount from his private practice as a medical practitioner. Plaintiff No. 1 has given the details of the property owned by the defendant and they are house No. 17/1, Race Course, Indore (M.P.) and first floor of building No. 119/9, Dak Bungalow Road, Partapgarh, Rajasthan and 174 bighas of agricultural land in Timerwan, Tehsil Partapgarh, Rajasthan. jamabhandi Ex. PA and PB have been produced which give the details of the agricultural land owned by defendant. According to Jamabhandi the defendant owns about 89 bighas of agricultural land. Looking the fact that the plaintiffs are of a royal descent they are entitled to maintenance commensurate with their position and status the plaintiffs should be paid a sum of Rs. 5500.00 per month by the defendant as maintenance. With this sum and the rental income the plaintiffs should be able to have a comfortable living though not an ostentatious one. The plaintiffs will also be entitled to arrears at the said rate with effect from July, 1986 the date on which the defendant descried the plaintiffs till the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are of a marriageable age and for this purpose at least a sum of Rs. 2 lacks would be required.