VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. POONAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant husband in the instant appeal questions part of the judgment dated 14th March, 2011, passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorekee, District Haridwar, whereby, while deciding Case No. 14 of 2008, Smt. Poonam Vs. Virendra Kumar, wherein the wife has sought the relief of dissolution of marriage, has decreed the suit, but while doing so, the Court has simultaneously granted a permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act, to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- to be paid to plaintiff / respondent in two equal instalments. It is this part of the judgment, where the Court has granted an alimony of Rs. 2,50,000/- to plaintiff is a subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.

(2.) On scrutiny of the grounds taken in the appeal, none of the grounds are of such a nature which could justify the challenge given by the appellant to the alimony under Section 25 except only ground No. 6 where the husband has taken a plea that since the proceedings under Section 9 has been decided in his favour and the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. of wife has been dismissed, hence, it would simultaneously effect the grant of alimony under Section 25, thus, he questions the judgment impugned so far it relates on issue No. 3.

(3.) A short fact leading to the filing of the petition is that wife in her plaint contended that she was married with the defendant appellant on 24.02.2007, in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals. She submitted that though she did her diploma in Office Management prior to the marriage but, even after the marriage, she discharged her matrimonial obligation and lived as an exclusive wife without being employed anywhere. She submitted that though she was permitted to undergo the training of IIT and with the consent of the husband she started residing in a tenanted accommodation, bearing Municipal No. 54 Civil Lines, Roorkee which carried a monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- p.m.. She in the plaint submitted that out of the consolidated amount which she used to receive, Rs.1,400/-, out of which, Rs.1,200/- was remitted by her by way of rent to the accommodation and the remaining amount is too meagre to sustain herself. For the grant of permanent alimony, she submitted that as far as the defendant appellant is concerned, he is working as a Sub Inspection in Industrial Security Force 'CSPT' at Chandrapur Bokaro and she submitted that out of the salary, which is drawn by him, he is a recipient of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. She alleged that out of the left over income, which was too short to maintain herself in life, she used to sustain herself from the borrowing, which she made from her family members who often financially assisted her. Owing to the cruelty, she submitted that on 16.06.2007, she was beaten by the in-laws and thrown out of the house against which she has lodged a complaint to the SSP and thereafter she started residing with the parents.