SAKHARAM Vs. GOKARNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has approached this court by this revision against the order of granting maintenance of Rs. 75 p.m. to respondent No. 1 in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola dated 28 -2 -1984. The trial court had rejected the application of respondent No. 1 for grant of maintenance on the ground that the applicant has no sufficient means to provide maintenance. This is the only point which has been urged by Shri Kherdekar in this revision.

(2.) ACCORDING to Shri Kherdekar, the learned counsel for the applicant, the finding of fact reached by the trial court on the basis of the evidence has been properly assessed in arriving at the conclusion that he does not have sufficient means to maintain Gokarnabai. The non -applicant Gokarnabai has stated in her evidence that there is some land in the family but it has been demonstrated that three acres of land which is possessed by the family is the self acquired property of the father of the applicant Sakharam. Consequently it has been urged that this was not the property of the applicant and, therefore, be had no sufficient means to provide maintenance.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed this finding on the basis of the consideration that the petitioner is working as a labourer and is able to maintain himself and his second wife Laxamibai. The contention of Shri Kherdekar is on the basis of the provisions of Section 125 where it is provided that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife then the provision under Section 125 can be invoked. According to him, if he has no sufficient means, then the provisions must be invoked for grant of maintenance. The term sufficient means' is always in relation to a particular individual, taking into consideration his occupation and trade. In the instant case, it is found that he is a labourer and no fixed wages can be established as regards his monthly income. However, when the neglect or refusal on his part is proved to maintain his wife whatever the income he derives will be construed as his sufficient means and out of the earning he has to maintain his wife. The husband cannot avoid his responsibility by saying that he has no sufficient means and, therefore, he cannot maintain his wife. The finding reached by the learned Sessions Judge that the contention raised by the petitioner could not be accepted since he is maintaining another wife cannot be said to be contrary to the evidence which is on record. In my view, the grant of Rs. 75 p.m. towards maintenance to respondent No. 1 is proper and considering the circumstances of this case, it does not call for any interference.