SANJAY SHARMA Vs. ARADHANA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE VEDAS suggest division of human life into four stages viz. Brahamacharya, Grihastha, Vaanprastha and Sanyaasa, commonly known as four Aashramas. In the Brahamacharya Aashrama one passes through the life of studenthood, in the Grihastha Aashrama one passes through the life of house-holder, in the Vaanprastha one retires from worldly pursuits, and in the Sanyaasa Aashrama one renounces all worldly attachments. THE Grihastha Aashrama begins with marriage. Here the married couple face the hard realities of life. In the stability of families depends the stability of nation. THE institution of marriage was established with the purpose of achieving stability in our social life. Marriage is not just a social contract. It is much more than that. As a family is the nucleus of a nation, it has to be protected with great care and all costs. THE facts of this case however reveal that the young couple did not rise cheerfully to the occasion and failed to recognise their responsibility in the marital home.

(2.) IN all the three appeals husband (Sanjay) is the appellant and wife (Aradhna) is the respondent. They got married according to Hindu rites on December 25, 1994. Somehow their marital relations became strained and Sanjay had to file a petition in the Family Court No. 2 Jaipur under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short `the Act') seeking divorce from Aradhna on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. IN the year 2000 while the said petition was pending, Aradhana filed another petition under section 9 of the Act claiming restitution of conjugal rights. Both the petitions were decided by the learned Family Court conjointly vide decree and judgment dated February 26, 2002 granting relief to Aradhana. Being aggrieved by the findings, appeals bearing Nos. 584/2002 and 581/2002 have been filed by Sanjay. The petition moved by Aradhana under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act claiming maintenance from Sanjay was however decreed on August 26, 2003. This decree has been assailed by Sanjay in appeal No. 2353/2003. Since the questions of law and fact involve in these appeals are identical, we proceed to decide them by a common judgment.

(3.) SANJAY filed reply to petition stating therein that he was regularly paying the maintenance as awarded by the court. He further stated that Aradhana was serving as Teacher in a private school and earning Rs. 2000/- per month. He further pleaded that he was simply a clerk and earning small amount not sufficient to maintain himself. He also stated that Aradhana was receiving Rs. 1]500/- per month as maintenance allowance and he paid her lump sum maintenance allowance Rs. 30]000/-, therefore she was not entitled to maintenance allowance.