SAU ANURADHA ANIRUDH DESHPANDE Vs. ANIRUDH RAGHUNATH DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned Counsel Shri Paranjape for the Appellant-wife-original plaintiff and Shri. Khambete for the Respondents. The short point that arises for our consideration is whether clauses 4 and 5 of the decree dated 1st July 1991 passed by the Family Court, Pune in B-Petition No.16/1989 require any modification in view of the provisions of Order 33 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as under :-

(2.) THE Appellant Anuradha married the 1st Respondent Anirudh on 5-12-1982. A son Nikhil was born on 2-10-1983. Petition No.9/1989 was filed by the wife Anuradha alleging cruelty by the husband. That petition was allowed on 4-4-1989 when decree for divorce was granted. On 23-4-1989 the present proceedings were initiated for return of Stri-dhan property of the Appellant-wife. THE said proceedings have been numbered as B-Petition No.16/1989. We need not go to the details of the claim of the wife since the wife's claim has been partly allowed and the 1st Respondent has been directed to return certain articles or their market value to the Appellant. THEre is no controversy before us on merits of the matter.

(3.) SHRI Paranjape contended that under Rule 10, the Court has discretion to direct the recovery of the Court fees from any party to the suit. However, under Rule 11 where the indigent person fails, there is no discretion but to direct the recovery of the Court fees from such indigent person, who is the plaintiff. For the exercise of the discretion, in the facts of the present case, SHRI Paranjape pointed out that the wife is not earning anything and the son Nikhil is also maintained by her. As against this, the Respondent no.1 - husband, who appears to be a qualified person, is earning.