GANPATRAO BHIWAJI CHANDIWALE Vs. JAIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the original respondent-husband is directed against the order dated 23-11-1981 ordering payment of maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month, in favour of the respondent-wife, passed under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) APPELLANT married with the respondent about 35 years before the initiation of the proceedings. Respondent-Jaibai continued at her matrimonial home with appellant-Ganpatrao for a period of 5 to 6 years. Thereafter, she was driven. She, therefore, in 1980 initiated the proceedings under section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial Court on 23-11-1981 decreed the claim. She also filed application under Section 24 for interim alimony. However, the same was not decided. She then presented application under Section 25 of the Act claiming permanent alimony. She states that the appellant-husband owns about 200 acres of land and he has not provided anything for the maintenance. In support of her claim she examined herself. She was not cross-examined on material aspect except making a suggestion that she is not a wife of the appellant. This suggestion has been denied. The learned Court below taking into consideration the material aspect and evidence on the record ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 100/- per month towards the maintenance. This order has been impugned before me.

(3.) MR. Gawande, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, firstly contended that the order of restitution of conjugal rights suffers from infirmity and also from impropriety. According to him, there should not have been an order of restitution after a gap of 35 years, and when the parties are at the fag end of their life. Since the appellant has not questioned the validity or legality of the order of restitution of conjugal rights I cannot look into the merit of the ground as tried to be contended.