Satish @ Santosh vs. Vineeta

Court No. - 32

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 229 of 2018 Appellant :- Satish @ Santosh And 2 Others Respondent :- Smt. Vineeta And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Rathore,S.K. Rathore,Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Hardev Prajapati

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.01.2018, passed by Judge, Family Court, Kasganj in Maintenance Case No. 16 of 2017, under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance, Act, 1956, whereby a maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs. 1500/- per month has been awarded to the respondent from the date of application i.e. 23.12.1999.

From perusal of record it appears that the marriage between the appellant no. 1 and respondent no. 1 was solemnized in the year 1993 as per Hindu rights and rituals. Out of aforesaid wedlock a son was born. In the marriage the father of respondent no. 1 had given sufficient dowry to the appellant no. 1 but the appellant no. 1 and his family members were not satisfied with the said dowry. Due to non fulfillment of additional dowry, the appellant no. 1 and his family members started harassing and torturing the respondent no. 1 and on account of which the respondentwife has become mentally disturbed, hence, the father of respondent-wife has taken her daughter to his house because the appellant-husband was not maintaining his wife in a proper manner. The father of respondentwife is a very poor person. He has spent all his money for the treatment of his daughter/respondent-wife and is not in a position to support his daughter/respondent no. 1 and his grand son-in-law/respondent no. 2. The appellant-husband is a very rich and prosperous businessman.

The respondent has filed written statement rebutting the allegations made by the appellants. The maintenance was awarded to the respondent no. 1 to the tune of Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 500/- to her child. During the pendency of the suit, the son of respondent no. 1 got expired.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the court below has awarded maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of application and as such awarding the maintenance from the date of application is illegal as there was no justification in awarding the maintenance from the date of application.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the court below was fully justified in passing the impugned order granting Rs. 1500/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent no. 1 from the date of application as the appellants have been delaying the disposal of the case pending before the court below.

The appellant has not disputed the quantum of maintenance pendente lite i.e. Rs. 1500/- per month but has challenged the monthly maintenance from the date of application.

It is notable that the appellant-husband in his cross-examination before the court below had admitted that no maintenance was given by him to respondent no. 1 during the pendency of the suit. It is also relevant to note that the court below in its impugned order has observed that the appellant in his affidavit in paragraph no. 19 has himself admitted that while he was working at Delhi, he came in the contact with another lady in the year 2003 and developed relationship with her and thereafter started maintaining and supporting her and out of the said relationship, two children were also born.

For ready reference, the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 22.012018 is quoted herein below :-

"इसके अतिरिक्त यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि विपक्षी संख्या— 1 ने अपने साक्ष्य शपथपत्र 136 अ की मद संख्या— 19 में अंकित किया है कि देहली में कार्य करते समय एक महिला वर्ष 2003 में उसके सम्पर्क में आयी और लगातार उसे प्रति हमदर्दी जताने व उसके खानपान की व्यवस्था के कारण विपक्षी उससे प्रभावित हो गया व उक्त महिला के खानपान व्यवस्था की जिम्मेदारी समझने लगा व वर्ष 2004 में उसके बेटे का जन्म हुआ। इसी कम मे विपक्षी ने अपने शपथपत्र की मद संख्या– 21 में कहा कि "विनीता मेरी विवाहिता पत्नी है।" विपक्षी ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में कहा कि "यह बात मैंने सही लिखी है कि 2003 से मेरे साथ एक महिला रह रही है, उससे दो लड़के पैदा हुए। " इस प्रकार विपक्षी के साक्ष्य से स्पष्ट है कि आवेदिका संख्या– 1 से बिना विवाह विच्छेद हुए , उसके जीवन काल में ही, विपक्षी ने एक अन्य स्त्री को अपने साथ बतौर पत्नी रख लिया है और उक्त द्वितीय स्त्री के संसर्ग से दो बच्चे पैदा हुये है, जब कि आवेदिका संख्या–1 आज भी अपने मायके में मजबूरियों में विपक्षी के उत्पीड़नवश निवास कर रही है। विपक्षी का उक्त कृत्य स्पष्ट करता है कि उसने आवेदिका संख्या–1 के जीवनकाल में ही, बिना किसी सक्षम न्यायालय से उससे विवाह विच्छेद कराये हुए, उसकी उपेक्षा करते हुए, परस्त्री से सम्बन्ध बनाकर , उसकी घोर उपेक्षा की है, जो कि स्वीकृत रूप से आवेदिका संख्या–1 के विपक्षी से पृथक रहने का एक अन्य प्रबल पर्याप्त आधार है।

13— ऐसी परिस्थितियों में पत्रावली पर पैरा संख्या—12 में विवेचित तथ्यों के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी द्वारा आवेदिका का उत्पीडन कर उसे मय अवयस्क पुत्र के घर से निकाल दिया गया तथा आवेदिका संख्या—1 व उसके परिजनो के विरुद्ध बिना सक्षम साक्ष्य आरोप आरोपित किये गये व आवेदिका का लगभग 18 वर्ष से अधिक समय से परित्याग करने के कारण प्रार्थिया/ आवेदिका संख्या—1 मायके में रहने हेतु विवश हुयी तथा विपक्षी द्वारा आवेदिका संख्या—1 व अवयस्क पुत्र को उक्त पृथकीकरण के दौरान अपने साथ रखने हेतु कोई प्रभावी प्रयास किया गया हो, ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य विपक्षी ने प्रस्तुत नही किया है तथा विपक्षी द्वारा यह सिद्ध न कर पाना कि आवेदिका संख्या—1 के स्वयं अपनी इच्छा से अपने मायके में निवास कर रही है उक्त समस्त परिस्थितियां आवेदिका से विपक्षी द्वारा की जा रही मानसिक कूरता की श्रेणी में आती है तथा उपरिवर्णित समस्त परिस्थितियां आवेदिका संख्या—1 के विपक्षी संख्या—1 से पृथक रहने के पर्याप्त आधार है।

अतः उक्त समस्त साक्ष्य के अधीन यह साबित है कि प्रार्थिया/आवेदिका संख्या–1 पर्याप्त/युक्तियुक्त कारणों से विपक्षी संख्या–1 से पृथक रह रही है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या–1 निस्तारित किया जाता है।''

The Court has given a cogent and satisfactory reasons while awarding the maintenance to respondent no. 1 from the date of application. Perusal of record shows that the appellant himself caused delay in the disposal of the application under Section 24 of the Act. It may be noted that while giving the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1500/- from the date of application i.e. 23.12.1999, the appellant has given liberty to deposit the arrears of amount in equal installments.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind that the respondent no. 1 has no source of income to maintain her and no rebuttal was filed by the appellant in this regard, we are of the opinion that Rs. 15,00/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite from the date of application i.e. 23.12.1999 can not be said to be unjust because the husband is wholly responsible for proper maintenance of his wife and in the present case, the husband is not maintaining his wife and all the expenses are borne by his father-in-law, we also express our dismay that the court below has not awarded any amount towards litigation expenses in favour of respondent no. 1.

We do not see any justification to interfere in the matter.

The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the respondent, if she files any application/appeal for enhancement of interim maintenance and claims litigation expenses. It is further made clear that in case, the appellant no. 1 does not pay maintenance regularly as awarded by the court below, it is open for the respondent to take legal recourse to recover the amount in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 7.2.2019 sailesh