MILAN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. ANJULA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit filed by the respondent-wife under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a decree dissolving the marriage between the parties and directing permanent alimony and maintenance at the rate of Rs 150 per month under section 25 of the Act, has been passed on on 31-3-1981 by Shri S. N. Dixit, Fifth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur and the said judgment and decree are impugned in this appeal filed by the appellant-husband. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, withdrew his appeal on 1-2-1982 in so far as the decree relates to. divorce. The present appeal, therefore, survives only in respect of the decree for permanent alimony and maintenance

(2.) Admittedly, the parties were married at Jabalpur on 8-5-1977 when the respondent was only 14 years old. Unfortunately, their marriage did not succeed and hid to be dissolved During the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, an order under section 24 of the Act was passed on 27-1-1981, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 150 per month as interim maintenance during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter, on 24-3-1981, an application was made under section 25 of the Act, claiming a sum of Rs. 500 as permanent alimony. It appears that the suit was fixed for arguments on that date ; and the application was made after the arguments were heard. From the order-sheet, it appears that the appellant was represented before the trial Court by Shri H K. Yadav, Advocate, upto 21-2-1981. On 21-2-1981, the appellant appeared before the trial Court with his counsel and prayed for some time for filing an application, which was granted, but, later on. when the case was taken up, he did not appear and had to he proceeded ex parte. On 24-3-1981, the appellant was not represented and, hence, he did not file reply to application under section 25 of the Act. The trial Court relied upon the evidence on record and also the fact that an interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150 was granted by order dated 27-1-1981 ; and fixed permanent alimony at the rate Rs. 150 per month.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that proceedings under section 25 of the Act were taken in the absence of the appellant ; and, hence, the impugned order is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Apparently, the appellant was proceeded ex parte on 24-3-1981. He however, has not made any grievance about his being proceeds ex parte or the consequent decree for divorce. He has also not challenged the order granting interim maintenance. Under the circumstances, I required the learned counsel for the appellant to state the defence for consideration of this Court. The learned counsel frankly conceded that the :appellant has no other defence than the one taken for grant of interim maintenance. That defence is that he does not have any independent source of income. The appellant's statement was recorded in the trial Court on 10-1-1981, wherein he has stated that Milan Cycle and Rikshaw Company of Allahabad belongs to his father. The agency of Joolie Moped also belongs to his father, according to him. He has stated that he does not have any independent source of income and is dependent on his father. In cross-examination, he admitted that his grand-father and father were living together and he and his brother and sisters were also living with them. They were joint not only in residence, but also in mess. He also admitted that he attends to the business of his father and effects sales. He gets some money for his pocket expenses and also expenses for going on holiday to Bombay and Delhi. These facts were considered in the context of law on the subject by the trial Court in its order dated 27-1-1981 while considering grant of interim maintenance under section 24 of the Act, wherein it was held that the business and other property was really the property of the joint family, whose income cannot be estimated less than Rs. 2,000. On these considerations, an interim maintenance of Rs. 150 was granted. The appellant did not challenge the said order. On the contrary, he has paid the same. Since no new circumstance is pleaded and no new evidence is adduced, it is not possible to take any different view of the matter. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree.