SEESO ALIAS BAKHSHISH KAUR Vs. PAKHAR SINGH JHUTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this judgment two appeals (RSA No. 2176 and 2294 of 1986) arising out of the same judgment and decree of District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated May 31, 1986, whereby judgment and decree of the trial Court dated September 13, 1985, was modified, are being disposed of. Trial Court decreed the suit filed by Smt. Seeso and her minor daughter Kuldip Kaur for recovery of maintenance for the period October 1, 1979 to October 31, 1982 amounting to Rs. 74,000/- and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month to each of the plaintiffs from November 1, 1982. On appeal filed by Pakhar Singh, husband of Smt. Seeso, the decree of the trial Court was modified. The suit filed by Seeso was dismissed whereas the minor Kuldip Kaur was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month in future and on the same rate arrears were allowed. The connected appeal filed by Seeso and Kuldip Kaur for enhancement of the maintenance was dismissed.

(2.) THE marriage between Pakhar Singh and Seeso took place in the year 1955 in village Dakhowal. They lived together for one year and parted thereafter. On a petition filed by Pakhar Singh under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a decree for restitution of conjugal eights was passed on the basis of compromise between the parties on January 7, 1961. Thereafter both of them lived together for some time. Kuldip Kaur was born out of the wedlock on October 28, 1962. Thereafter Pakhar Singh and Seeso did not live together. After about 10 years i. e. in 1972 Pakhar Singh left for abroad. He re-married and some children were born out of the second marriage. The economic condition of Seeso forced her and her minor daughter Kuldip Kaur to shift to Gandhi Vanita Ashram, Jalandhar. On the stipend and assistance provided by the Government agencies Kuldip Kaur continued her studies. She ultimately joined college classes with the aid from the Chief Minister's welfare fund. On November 25, 1982, the present suit was filed by Seeso and her daughter Kuldip Kaur for recovery of Rs. 1,48,000/- @ Rs. 4000/- per month for the period October 1,1979 to October 31, 1982 and future maintenance also at the aforesaid rate. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the defendant was earning to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month while working in Canada. The defendant did not maintain the plaintiffs. Thus both the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 2000/-per month each. Inter alia, denying the right of the plaintiffs to claim maintenance, the respondent averred that, plaintiffs were estopped from filing the suit by their acts and conducts. He also denied his income as alleged by the plaintiffs. In the replication the plaintiffs reiterated their stand. The trial court framed the following issues :-

(3.) THE contention of Shrimati Kuldip Kaur appellant is that Shrimati Seeso appellant was entitled to live separately from her husband who had contracted second marriage and thus was entitled to get maintenance from the husband when she had no source of income. This contention, in the facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be accepted. The broad facts which have been reproduced above are not disputed and further there was compromise between the parties. The couple lived together for a short span of time when Smt. Seeso left the company of her husband. It was thereafter that she delivered a female child;--Kuldip Kaur. This happened some time in the year 1961. It was in 1972 that Pakhar Singh went abroad and re-married thereafter. If Smt. Seeso had left the company of her husband of her own and continued living separately for a period of about 10 years, she could not claim any maintenance from her husband. Without commenting upon the legality or otherwise of the second marriage of the husband the same would not give any fresh cause to Smt. Seeso to claim maintenance. Shrimati Kuldip Kaur appellant relied upon two judgments of the Madras High Court on the proposition that when husband started living with another woman and deserted the wife, she was entitled to maintenance while living separate. The judgments are Maharaja Nadar v. Muthukani Ammal, AIR 1986 Madras 346 and A. Bhagavathi Ammal and Ors. v. Sethu, AIR 1987 Madras 224. The ratio of the decisions aforesaid cannot be applied to the facts of the case in hand. As already stated above it was Smt. Seeso who left the company of her husband and continued staying away for a period of about 10 years. No fresh cause occurred to her for claiming maintenance subsequently on the re-marriage of her husband.