A. R. MUNUSWAMY RAJOO Vs. HAMSA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Munuswami Rajoo is the lawfully wedded husband of Hamsa Rani, the respondent. The marriage between the two took place on 6 -6 -1963. A son was born out of the wedlock on 22 -12 -1964. The case of the respondent was that the appellant was having illicit intimacy with one Sundarammal and that consequently he treated her (the respondent) cruelly and drove her and her son away from his house on 16 -10 -1966. The appellant filed a petition, O. P. 206 of 1966, against the respondent, for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion and adultery. This petition was dismissed because the appellant failed to pay the litigation expenses and interim maintenance ordered by the court. Unfortunately, the appellant allowed this order to become final. Meanwhile, the respondent -wife filed O. P. 235 of 1968 against the appellant -husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant filed a counter vehemently contesting the petition on the ground that the respondent had deserted him and was living in adultery. These objections were overruled by the trial court and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted on 16 -12 -1970. No appeal was filed against this decree either, with the result, it has also become final and binding upon the husband. Subsequent to the decree in O. P. 235 of 1968, the respondent filed I. A. 3800 of 1971, under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, praving for a direction to the appellant to pay her Rs. 150 per month for her alimony as well as for the maintenance of her child, who is now about 7 years old. Notice of this application was served upon the appellant, who filed a counter through counsel raising several objections both to the maintainability of the application and to the quantum of the allowance claimed

(2.) I shall first deal with the objection relating to the quantum of the amount fixed, Admittedly, the appellant is an employee of the Food Corporation of India drawing a monthly salary of about Rs. 501 inclusive of all allowances. His case is that he is very sickly and that he has to support Sundarammal, his father's concubine, who has been bringing him up from his childhood. It is unnecessary to consider whether Sundarammal is the concubine of the appellant as alleged by the respondent or the concubine of his father. Assuming that it is his duty to support that woman, his duty to support his lawfully wedded wife and his own legitimate son is even more imperative. The amount of Rs. 100 awarded for the maintenance of his wife and child constituted but 1/5th of the gross monthly income that he is getting. It is true that the respondent owns 35 cents of land. There is no definite evidence as to the income it would fetch. Having regard to the extent of the land and its quality, I do not think that it would fetch any considerable income. Both the courts below have, with reference to the relevant legal principles, quantified the maintenance amount at Rs. 75 per month for the respondent and Rs. 25 per month for the child. I see little reason to interfere with the quantum concurrently fixed by both the courts below.

(3.) SECTION 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, runs as follows -