(1.) IN this Family Court appeal, the appellant (husband) challenges the judgment and order dated 9th July, 2000 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Bandra wherein permanent alimony of Rs. 5,000/- was granted to the respondent (wife) on a petition filed by her under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
(2.) ALTHOUGH, the appellant had raised several contentions in the memo of appeal, at the final hearing, the arguments were restricted to two points. Firstly, it was contended that though the appellant and the respondent have lived together for nearly 18 years as husband and wife and have two children from the said wedlock, the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the appellant as the marriage between the two was not solemnised in accordance with law and secondly, even assuming that the marriage was solemnised in accordance with law, in view of the admission of the wife that on the date of her marriage, the husband had a living spouse, renders the marriage of the wife null and void and consequently, in law, she is not entitled for maintenance. In other words, the submission is that during the subsistence of the first marriage, if the second marriage is solemnised then in law, the second marriage is null and void and the second wife is not entitled to maintenance. The husband strongly relies upon various decisions, including the decisions of the Apex Court to justify his above claim. The husband with a view to be magnanimous towards the wife, submitted that in law, she has no status and although he has not rebutted her allegations that he is a womanizer and living an adulterous life and has been ill-treating her, however, he is willing to allow her to stay with him. Thus, in substance, according to the husband the legislative enactments prevailing in our country as well as the judicial pronouncements heavily support his conduct and the respondent being his second wife, married during the subsistence of his first marriage, has no status, no security whatsoever in life and she must be either at his mercy or suffer silently, even if she is a victim of his evil designs.
(3.) THE facts set out by the wife in her permanent alimony Petition No. C-96/96 filed in the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai under section 18 (b) and (g) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Maintenance Act for short) is as follows:---The appellant and the respondent got married on 2nd June, 1978 according to Hindu Vedic Rites at Vile Parle (East) Mumbai. At the time of the marriage, she was a spinster and the appellant represented to be a Bachelor residing at Surat. The appellant is a Mechanical Engineer and is a Professor in an Engineering College at Surat. From their marriage, son Bharat was born on 6-8-1979 and another son Piyush was born on 12-9-1980. Within 2/3 years of her marriage, the wife realised that the husband was a womaniser and was liquor addict. That the husband was having illicit and adulterous relations with his brothers wife Chanchalben. That, day by day, the husband started ill-treating the wife and began and demand dowry in the form of gold, cash, etc. That, day by day the womanizing activities of the husband increased and several times he was caught red-handed and when objected to by the wife, she was mercilessly beaten. That, when the physical and mental torture became unbearable, she left the matrimonial house in the year 1983 with her two children and went to her parents house at Mumbai. On the intervention of family members, the husband apologised and executed a document in writing expressing that in future, he would not repeat such behaviour. Believing the statement of the husband, she went back to the matrimonial home. However, the apology and the assurances of good behaviour were short lived and the husband was back to his old immoral and illegal activities in no time. That the husband continued to torture the wife physically and mentally without any justification. On 18th August, 1995 when the wife was preparing tea in the afternoon, the husband deliberately pushed her on a burning stove. However, luckily she was saved. In view of the risk to her life, on 19th August, 1995, the wife called her brother and went to Umra Police Station at Surat and lodged a complaint against the husband and the said Chanchalben for the cruelty meted out to her for dowry and also their adulterous relations. Both, the husband and the said Chanchalben were arrested and later released on bail. As there was no safety to her life, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and live with her brother at Mumbai. Since both the sons were studying, they continued to stay with the husband at Surat.