SANGEETA BALKRISHNA KADAM Vs. BALKRISHNA RAMCHANDRA KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASPECTS of some significance touching proceedings instituted for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 have arisen in these appeals, in which we have heard learned counsel extensively, which issues are summarized below :

(2.) THESE are some of the main facets of the dispute that has fallen for adjudication before us. We shall, to the extent necessary, summarise the history of this proceeding, which is rather unusual and which, in fact, encompasses three different matrimonial proceedings. The appellant-wife had instituted M. J. Petition No. 383 of 1986 before the City Civil Court at Bombay on 4-4-1986 praying for a decree for judicial separation as also for a direction that she be awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,050. 00 per month for her three children. The appellant-wife was gainfully employed at that time and did not pray for any maintenance for herself. This petition was preceded by an earlier petition, being M. J. Petition No. 662 of 1982, filed by the respondent-husband. He had sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The parties are Hindus and were married at Bombay on 11-5-1969 according to the vedic rites and ceremonies. The couple had three children, the first of them being a son by the name Rajesh, the second being a daughter by the name Unnati and the third a son by the name of Suprasad. We are not immediately concerned with the lengthy pleadings that are on record wherein the parties have traded a number of charges against each other. The reason for this is that the petition filed by the husband, wherein he alleged instances of cruelty which were denied by the appellant-wife was contested and the City Civil Court dismissed the petition with costs. It is relevant to point out that by virtue of a direction from the High Court, M. J. Petition No. 383 of 1986, which had been filed by the wife wherein she had prayed for a decree of judicial separation, was heard along with the husband's M. J. Petition No. 662 of 1982 and the petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 21-4-1987. This aspect is of some relevance because Mr. Angal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-wife, has sought to advance a submission on the issue of maintenance, which will have some bearing on the fact that the two petitions came to be heard and disposed of through a common judgment. The City Civil Court at Bombay, while dismissing the husband's petition, decreed the wife's petition and she was granted a decree of judicial separation. The only relevant aspect of the matter that is of some consequence as far as the present proceeding is concerned is that, admittedly, after a short cohabitation lasting about three years, the wife left the matrimonial home on 16-8-1972. There are references to some resumption of cohabitation in the course of the subsequent years on each of which occasion a situation arose whereby the parties again separated. At the time of the filing of the petition, admittedly, they were living apart. The City Civil Court at Bombay, while disposing of the two petitions on 21-4-1987, granted an ancillary relief whereby the appellant-wife was awarded maintenance in the sum of Rs. 600. 00 per month from the date of the decree as maintenance for the three children.

(3.) THE present appellant filed First Appeal No. 15 of 1989 impugning the validity of the judgment and decree in question. This First Appeal came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 11-6-1991 by our brother Patankar, J. The appeal was partly allowed and the respondent-husband was directed to pay maintenance from the date of the presentation of M. J. Petition No. 383 of 1986, i. e. , from 4-4-1986 and not from the date of the decree. It was clarified that the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200. 00 per month in respect of each of the children was to be paid till each of them attained majority, i. e. , in the case of Rajesh till 21-4-1988, in the case of Unnati till 6-12-1997 and in the case of Suprabhat till 5-7-1999. It is against this judgment and order that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred.