PUSHPA ANIL SHARMA Vs. ANIL SHIVMURTHY SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Pushpa Anil Sharma. the appellant herein filed a petition in the Family Court, Bombay under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('act', for short) against her husband, the respondent herein, seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights and a permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The respondent, in his turn, filed a cross petition seeking a decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Act on the ground that his marriage could not be consummated owing to his wife's impotence. Alternatively, he prayed for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of desertion.

(2.) AFTER hearing the parties, the learned Family Court rejected the petition filed by the appellant and allowed the prayer of the respondent for a decree of divorce. The learned Judge, however, directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- per month to the appellant towards her maintenance with effect from the date of the filing of her petition i. e. July 21, 1988. Aggrieved by the paucity of the amount of maintenance, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

(3.) IN the context of the stand now taken by the appellant, the only question that falls for our determination the Family Court was justified in granting a sum of Rs. 400/- only towards monthly maintenance of the appellant as against her claim of Rs. 2,500/ -. In arriving at the above figure, the learned Judge observed there was no dispute that the respondent was carrying on business in plywood and furniture-making under the name and style of Anil Plywood Works at andheri and that according to him (the respondent) he had only an interest of 25% therein. The learned Judge next observed that the respondent's claim that be had a monthly income of Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800/- was not correct and that he was trying to suppress the true figures regarding his income and that, according to the learned Judge, the respondent was having much more earnings than what be had claimed. However, the learned Judge having regard to the requirements of the appellant, her standard of living and paying capacity to the respondent arrived at the figure of Rs. 400/- per month.