SHANTI DEVI Vs. KULDIP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the wife against the order of the Subordinate Judge First Class, Dhuri, passed in an application filed under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the, Act). The prayer made in the application was that the maintenance allowance of Rs. 80 per month which has been fixed in accordance with the compromise between the parties on July 26, 1966, may be suitably enhanced in view of the changed financial and other circumstances of the respondent. The respondent contested the application and contended that the appellant had inherited moveable and immovable property from her father and was also possessed of jewellary besides working as a private teacher. The trial Court considered the matter in the light of the evidence produced by the parties. The appellant produced Varinder Kumar and Ramesh Chand as her witnesses. The first witness stated that she did out own any immovable property from her father, as alleged. Ramesh Chand (AW. 2) is a Clerk of the State Bank of Patiala woo produced a copy of the pay certificate Exhibit P. 1 relating to the respondent. The appellant herself stepped into the witness-box and deposed that she had no independent source of livelihood. The respondent on the other hand did not lead any evidence. Considering this material placed on the record the trial Courts enhanced the maintenance allowance to Rs. 150/- per mouth with effect from the date of the order. The present appeal is directed agalnst tills order of the learned Subordinate Judge (Exercising powers of the District Judge under the Act).

(2.) During the course of the arguments in this case, the parties filed their respective affidavits and both of them desired that these affidavits mad be taken into consideration without any objection from the other side, as they throw some light in regard to sonic changed circumstances which had occurred after the passing of the order by the learned subordinate Judge in the affidavit tiled by the appellant, she alleged that on the retirement of the respondent on August 17, 1971, he received Rs. 1,40,000/- from the Bank of Patiala in which Bank he was employed. It was alleged that the respondent was now employed in a China Ware Factory and was getting a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month with various other facilities provided by the company. The respondent controverted these: allegations in the affidavit. He admitted that he retired from the service of the State Bank of Patiala with effect from August 17, 1977. However, he stated that he was not doing any work since the date of his retirement. In fact, he was having indiffernt health and had to take medical treatment for his ailments in his second affidavit, the respondent admitted that he had received a sum of Rs. 80,110/- as provident fund and Rs. 23,885/- as gratuity from the Bank.

(3.) Mr. Tirath Singh learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that in view of the fact that the respondent has received a large stun of money over Rupees one lac after his retirement, he is now sufficiently well off in so far as his finances are concerned and that he should pay a large amount on account of maintenance allowance to the appellant. There is substance in this contention. As the parties do not object to the consideration of the evidence contained in the affidavits filed by them, the court can take due notice of it. Apart from this additional evidence, even the certificate Exhibit P.1 indicates that in 1974. the respondent drew a sum of Rs. 27,910.22 on account of his total salary for that year. There is no hard and fast rule in regard to the assessor of maintenance allowance merely on the basis of salary received by the husband as many other attending circumstances have also to be taken into consideration. There is no allegation on the part of the respondent that he is to be burdened with the liabilities of maintaining any children of the parties or in fact, any other relation who may he dependent upon him. The trial Court appears to have followed an incorrect method on basing the increase in the maintenance allowance on the circumstances that earlier in 1967 the parties had compromised and the appellant I agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 80/- per month only as maintenance allowance. The maintenance allowance has now been a wed at Rs. 150 by practically doubling his figure Rs. 80/-. I think, considering all the material on the record, the maintenance allowance should have been enhanced suitably more so in wake of the present high prices. It is not possible for the appellant who is an old lady to maintain herself with meagre amount of Rs. 150/- per month. The finding of the trial Court in this behalf is, therefore modified and the maintenance allowance is enhanced to Rs. 225/- month. The maintenance allowance shall be payable with effect from the date of application. If the respondent has been paying so maintenance allowance to the appellant, during this period, he shall entitled to suitable adjustment of that amount.