MAHADEO Vs. BHIMABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application has been filed by the husband against the concurrent finding of granting maintenance of Rs. 150/ - per month to the respondent -wife. While admitting this application, the Rule has been issued on the question of quantum of maintenance only.

(2.) SMT . Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted two grounds for reducing the quantum of maintenance. One factor is that prosecution witness Natthu who examined at Exh. 22 has stated that the respondent Bhimabai has been granted one acre of land by her father, which is a land yielding paddy crop of about 5 to 6 Khandis a year. His evidence goes unchallenged. The trial court rejected the evidence of this witness on the ground that the applicant Mahadeo has failed to place on record any documentary evidence to show grant of one acre of land in favour of the non -applicant. According to the learned Magistrate, no crop statement or any other village record is placed on record to prove the fact of transfer of the land in favour of Bhimabai. On these considerations, the learned lower court did not take into consideration this part of the evidence of Natthu. The finding of the trial court on this point is that there was no means of livelihood available to Bhimabai. In my view, the finding of the trial court on this point is based on appreciation of evidence on record.

(3.) THE second aspect which has been urged by Smt. Sirpurkar is that the applicant was in the employment at the material time and was getting a salary and thereafter he is retired. In addition to this, she further submitted that the applicant has five children from his second wife Anusayabai which he is required to maintain and, therefore if these circumstances are taken into consideration, it necessarily follows that the amount of quantum requires to be reduced.