LAWS(HPH)-2016-11-40

KUBJA DEVI Vs. SHRI ISHWAR DASS

Decided On November 24, 2016
KUBJA DEVI Appellant
V/S
Shri Ishwar Dass Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, is divorced wife of the respondent. She is aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in an application under Sec. 25(2) of Hindu Marriage Act registered as HMP No. 30 of 2005 whereby her prayer for enhancement of maintenance allowance/alimony amount from Rs. 450.00 per month to Rs. 6000.00 per month has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts are not in controversy. The petitioner was admittedly wife of the respondent. The petitioner-wife had filed a petition under Sec. 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of judicial separation. The petition was allowed by learned District Judge Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul & Spiti districts at Mandi on 31.1.1983. The respondent-husband has filed an appeal registered as FAO No. 76 of 1983 in this Court against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Mandi. During the course of proceedings in the appeal before this Court the petitioner and respondent have agreed to dissolve the marriage by a decree of customary divorce. The divorce deed in original has been produced in evidence by the petitioner and marked as Ext.DA. In terms of this document, the parties mutually agreed for payment of Rs. 450.00 per month towards alimony/maintenance allowance to the petitioner by her husband, the respondent, till her death or she remarried. There is no controversy so as to the payment of Rs. 450.00 per month by the respondent to the petitioner for her maintenance. However, her grouse is that with the passage of time the income of her husband, the respondent, is increased, therefore the monthly maintenance Rs. 450.00 also deserves to be enhanced accordingly and as such, in the petition under Sec. 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act she filed in the trial Court claimed a sum of Rs. 6000.00 per month by way of such enhancement.

(3.) Learned trial Judge has framed the following issues in the petition: