GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order of the District Judge, Amritsar dated 20-9-1977, awarding maintenance to the wife under section 25 of the Act at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month, consequent to the award of a decree of a restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Act in favour of the husband. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) Though the appellant's appeal purports to be against the grant of alimony itself, his learned Advocate has confined himself to urging that the amount granted is excessive. He does not contend that no alimony should have been granted. It is not disputed that the appellant is employed as clerk in the office of Punjab State Electricity Board. He is getting Rs. 449/- per month. The learned Counsel has urged that the Court should have kept in mind the fact that the appellant had remarried and the bringing up of a family in these days in expensive. It may at once he said that the appellant clad remarried and the consequent increase in his expenses is not a relevant circumstances in considering what is the appropriate amount to be awarded as alimony in the existing situation. It is next contended that the appellant has to maintain his parent also. It is not the sole responsibility of the appellant to maintain his parents. That responsibility is to be shared by him and his three brothers. That apart, if the appellant has to maintain his newly wedded wife and his parents, it cannot be said that he cannot afford to spare any part of his income for the maintenance of the respondent. It cannot he disputed that it is the primary duty of the husband to maintain his wife and that was recognised even in the ancient texts of Hindu law-givers.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the appellant has finally urged that the amount of Rs. 125/- per month awarded to the respondent is excessive. It appears to me, however, that there is some substance in the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the fact that the respondent is making Rs. 25/- to Rs. 50/- a month by doing odd jobs and standard of living to which the parties are accustomed, as also the appellant's income into consideration it seems to me that Rs. 100/- per month would represent the appropriate amount.