VIDULA BHALCHANDRA LIMAYE Vs. BHALCHANDRA VINAYAK LIMAYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST Appeals Nos. 267 of 1981, 268 of 1981, 903 of 1981 and 858 of 1987 are the matters arising our of the matrimonial dispute between the wife and the husband. All these first appeals came up before me on 9th March, 1990 and Shri Angel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the wife in these matters started arguing the appeals ex parte, as the husband was absent in the Court. After hearing the said matter for a while I adjourned the said first appeals and directed Shri Angal to give notice to the husband stating in it that the said matters had come up for final hearing on 9-3-1990 and are part heard and are kept on 13th March, 1990. I gave the aforesaid direction to Shri Angal because Shri Angal took me through the earlier record and showed to me as to how the husband is doing his best every time to shunt off the said matters on one count or the other. When the matters were fixed on 13th March, 1990 and the said date was brought to the notice of the husband by Shri Angal, learned Counsel on behalf of the wife, the husband sent a telegram to fix the said first appeals after 7th April, 1990. From the record, I find that every time on the earlier occasions the matters were fixed peremptorily subject to part heard but somehow or the other the matters were adjourned at the behest of the husband on some count or the other. I, therefore, directed as aforesaid to Shri Angal, learned Counsel on behalf of the wife, to give notice about these first appeals which were kept part heard on 9th March, 1990 and were to come up for final hearing on 13th March, 1990. Accordingly, Shri Angal served notice on the husband on 10th March, 1990. After the receipt of the said service, the Registrar, High Court, Bombay, received a telegram sent by the husband stating "please do not proceed, I cannot attend, Advocate Limaye". Thereafter waiting for three days, the matters came up for final hearing on 15th March, 1990 and Shri Angal continued with his submissions in respect of the said matrimonial matters. Even till today i. e. 16th March, 1990 the husband has not attended this Court nor sent any message nor made any arrangement for working out the pending appeals. The manner in which Shri Limaye the husband in these matrimonial matters is taking these Court matters casually is most disgusting. Especially this type of behaviour cannot be expected from a person who himself is an Advocate practising in the Court. From the earlier history of these matters it appears that the husband in these matters is interested in protracting these proceedings on some pretext or the other. Therefore, this Court has no other alternative than to proceed with these matters ex-parte.

(2.) ALL these matters arise out of the matrimonial proceedings, some filed by the husband, some filled by the wife. The husband filed Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 1980 in the Court of the Civil Judge. Senior Division, Sangli, first for recovery of the moveables and ornaments from the wife. The wife filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 19 of 1980 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, on the ground of cruelty and adultery by the husband and the wife also claimed maintenance amount of Rs. 500/- each for herself and for her four children. Both these matters, by the order of the High Court, were directed to be heard by the District Judge, Sangli, along with one application filed by the husband under the Guardian and Wards Act being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 1980. The learned District Judge, Sangli, by his decision dated 22nd December, 1980 decreed the claim of the wife and passed a decree of dissolution of marriage and also awarded amount of Rs. 100/- per month each from 1st April, 1980 in favour of the Applicant wife and her three daughters. The learned District Judge dismissed the counter claim of the husband regarding the allegation of adultery against the wife.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 1980 of the learned District Judge, Sangli, the wife preferred appeal being First Appeal No. 268 of 1981 for enhancement of the maintenance from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 500/- per month to each of the children and the wife. When the said appeal against the order of maintenance passed by the District Judge was pending before this High Court, it appears that the husband filed application being Miscellaneous Application No. 58 of 1984 before the learned District Judge for cancellation of the order of maintenance in favour of the wife and the eldest daughter Urmila, on the ground that they are now serving and also on the ground that the financially he is not in a position to pay the said maintenance. When the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of this High Court on 22nd September, 1986. Justice Sharad Manohar directed the trial Court to record the findings on the quantum of maintenance in the said miscellaneous application. In pursuance of the said directions given by this High Court, the learned District Judge, Sangli gave his findings on the issues remanded to him, by his Judgment and order dated 20th April, 1987. By the said Judgment and order the learned District Judge cancelled the order of maintenance of Rs. 100/- each given by him earlier in favour of Vidula the wife and Urmila the eldest daughter. Against the said Judgment and decree given by the learned District Judge on 20th April, 1987 cancelling the maintenance of the wife and the eldest daughter, both the wife and the eldest daughter preferred First Appeal No. 858 of 1987 before this High Court. In the said first appeal it is contended on behalf of the wife and the eldest daughter that the learned District Judges findings and the order cancelling maintenance was illegal and that in fact the appellants were entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month each. I am disposing of all the four appeals preferred before me by this common Judgment.