LAXMI RANI KAPOOR Vs. MANOJ AMBASTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above noted appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act by the wife (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) arises from the judgment and order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna dated 28.9.2000 in Matrimonial Case No. 28 of 1996 allowing the petition of the husband (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The review petition is by the husband seeking review of an interim order, dated 19.3.2001, allowing maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/ - per month to the wife with effect from 1.10.2000 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Both the cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IT may at the outset be stated that though the appellant has assailed the findings of the family court on the point of cruelty and desertion, she has no grievance against the ultimate order regarding dissolution of marriage. As a matter of fact, from the records it appears that she too wanted divorce. While dealing with the appellants criticism of the relevant findings, this Court, in the interim order dated 19.3.2001, observed that though the case had been filed under Section 13 and not under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, since both parties wanted divorce, the discussions and findings on the point of desertion and cruelty were superfluous. This observation, according to the learned Judges, took "care of appellants grievance against those findings in the impugned judgment and nothing further is required to be said in this regard". With due respect to the learned Judges it may be observed that the conduct of the parties is a relevant consideration in considering the claim for permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Indeed, adverse findings on these points may even disentitle the applicant to claim maintenance. Therefore, merely because both parties wanted divorce or dissolution of marriage the relevant facts on the point of desertion or cruelty can be taken into consideration while considering such claim.

(3.) THE appellant appearing in person made a fervent appeal to finally decide the claim for one time alimony instead of remanding the case back to the court below for consideration. She submitted that for the last several years she has been regularly appearing in different Courts in connection with different proceedings and her predicament should be cut short by determining the amount in the present appeal itself. Appreciating the plea the appellant which in a sense could also be beneficial to the respondent as by making one time payment he would also be free from the recurring liability -month -to -month -hearing of the case was postponed two -three times so that the parties could work out a settlement and agree on the amount. Unfortunately, despite adjournments the parties could not arrive at settlement and it appeared that there was big gap between the amount claimed by the appellant and the amount the respondent agreed to pay as one time payment. In fact, the court even observed that in case the parties reach any understanding it may consider fixing proper instalments; however, the gap between the offer and counter offer to the two sides was too wide and the court ultimately abandoned the endeavour for settlement.