MANJU RAGHUVANSHI Vs. DILIP SINGH RAGHUVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case was taken up for hearing at 11 AM and thereafter it was passed over and thereafter taken up for hearing in the second round even then none has appeared for the respondents. Considering the fact that this petition is by a woman claiming maintenance and the case was adjourned on 4-5-2006 when also none appeared for the respondents and is listed for final hearing, again today this Court has no option but to proceed with hearing of the case in the absence of the respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER and respondent Dilip Singh Raghuvanshi were married on 30th May, 1991. However, after the marriage the relationship got strained and it is the case of the petitioner that because of cruelty and the consistent demand for dowry made by the respondent and his family members, petitioner had to go and stay with her parents. On the ground of cruelty the respondent husband has filed an application Annexure P-1 in the Court of Second additional District Judge, Guna in the year 2000 under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act seeking de-solution of the marriage. Immediately on service of notice petitioner appeared and filed an application claiming maintenance under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. The aforesaid application for maintenance has been decided by the impugned order and feeling aggrieved by the meagre amount of maintenance granted to the petitioner in comparison to the earning of the respondent husband so also being aggrieved by the date from which the maintenance is granted, petitioner has filed this petition for enhancement of the maintenance amount so also for granting her maintenance from the date when the application under Section 24 was filed.

(3.) SHRI B. K. Agrawal, learned Counsel representing the petitioner inviting my attention to the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act as contained in Annexure P-2 pointed out that from para three onwards specific particulars were given with regard to earning, property and assets of the respondent, which included his business transaction and it was the case of the petitioner that the annual earning of the respondent husband is rs. 5,26,725/- and accordingly, petitioner claimed maintenance of Rs. 21,946/-per month. Accordingly, it is pointed out that even though elaborate detailed applications were filed claiming maintenance, a formal reply was submitted simply denying the averments made in the application. Thereafter, evidence were recorded, documents were exhibited and in spite of the fact that detailed materials were produced to show that the respondent was a affluent businessman with large agricultural land, a meagre amount of Rs. 4000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance. Taking me through the facts available on record, so also placing reliance on the following judgments. Smt. Jasbir Kaur sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and others, AIR 1997 SC 3397, Smt. Archana tiwari Vs. Yogendra Mohan Tiwari, 1994 MPLJ 285 = 1993 (2) MPJR 325, Saroj bai (Smt) Vs. Jai Kumar Jain, 1994 MPLJ (FB) 928 = 1994 JLJ 725 (Full Bench), nirmala Tiwari Vs. Shobharam Tiwari, 1986 (11) MPWN 118, and Chitra sengupta Vs. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta, AIR 1988 Calcutta 98, Shri B. K. Agrawal argued that the amount of maintenance is on the lower side and contrary to the well settled principles laid down for grant of maintenance. Shri Agrawal also pointed out that the maintenance should have been granted from the date of filing of the application and the reason given for grant of maintenance from the date of order is unsustainable. Bringing on record the various dates of hearing as contained in Annexure P-16, Shri Agrawal tried to establish that the petitioner had not sought adjournment in the case unnecessarily. The petitioner had sought adjournment only on two occasions whereas on all other occasions the case was adjourned for cogent reasons which cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Shri Agrawal submitted that the respondent was not coming out with the true facts and if the petitioner was compelled to file applications for summoning of documents like income tax record, revenue records and other materials to show the income of the husband, the same cannot be a ground for attributing delay on the petitioner and denying maintenance from the date of application. Accordingly, Shri Agrawal submits that the order passed granting maintenance from the date of order is also unsustainable. The petitioner, according to Shri Agrawal, is entitled to maintenance w. e. f. 4-8-2000 when the application was filed claiming maintenance.