Brief Facts:
The marriage between the parties took place on 27.9.1984. The husband filed for divorce from the defendant as PA No.431/90 in the Pune family court on the grounds of cruelty. The family court appealed the divorce decision in favor of the husband on 5.8.91. During the divorce decree, the family court granted the permanent wife maintenance at a rate of Rs.600 / – per month using the discretionary power under section 25 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
After that, the wife filed PA No. 764/1995 to increase the amount of alimony permanently, and the court votes that its order of 30.6.96 to increase the amount of permanent maintenance from Rs.600 / – per month to Rs.800 / – per month. The husband later filed the FA No. 77/01 to cancel maintenance granted to wife in PA No. 431/90 developed in PA No. 766/95.
The main reason why the husband filed a permanent waiver is that his wife had pressured him to pay his maintenance and had obtained a permanent maintenance order by representing the court incorrectly because he had no source of income. In Petition No. 77/01, the husband has noticed that his wife has been running a business for a long time. It is also alleged that he owns a shop where he runs a business. He also owns an STD booth in his name in Nashik and also participates in buildings in Nashik.
With the said plea, it was emphasized that since the order for permanent maintenance is obtained by a good representation, the law has been canceled. In addition to applying for the permanent cancellation of permanent maintenance, the husband also applied to MA No. 7/01, asking the court to take action against the wife by filing a complaint under charges under sections 193, 182, 196, 199, 200, and 201 IPC, as the respondent-wife had given false evidence before the court in previous courts.
The family court has ruled in FA. 77/01 has therefore canceled the maintenance order permanently from the date of lodging the appeal. The relief that a man who is in a position to get help to pay for a wife has to be refused. The court also ruled MA No. 7/01 for taking action against the defendant for leading false evidence before the court.
Dissatisfied with the judgment and order issued by the family court for refusing to issue a directive to the respondent – the wife to return the amount of maintenance previously paid and suffered by refusing to take action against the defendant – the wife has filed false evidence before the court. It is a family court that cancels the maintenance grant permanently by FCA No.47/07. It is noted that the wife has filed an appeal by the end of 2007 and the application by her husband is in 2002.
Issues
The arbitration questions that arise in these appeals are (i) as to whether the family court is entitled to cancel the order for permanent maintenance and refusal to issue a directive against the wife to return the amount of maintenance already received? (ii) Does the court have reason to reject a husband’s request to take action against the respondent-wife for leading false evidence?
Rule of Law
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with the permanent alimony as well as the maintenance of the dependents. The provision of section 25 provides that any court exercising a power under this Act applies, at the time of appeal or at any time, based on an application made to the Tribunal by the spouse or, as the case may be, to order the claimant to pay the applicant is maintenance or maintenance money, such total or such monthly or periodic duration of the applicant’s life as, in respect of another applicant’s income and other assets, if any, income and other assets of the applicant, may be deemed in court to be valid, and any such payment may be protected, if necessary, by the imposition of immovable property of the applicant.
Let us try to separate the names and purposes of this stated system of complete understanding before proceeding with the discussion of the Prima Donna of this paper, namely Section 25, section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. in the sense of feeding the applicant the court, in its discretion which it deems fit and decides accordingly.
Therefore, when a proper application is lodged and heard at extension, an order may be issued to provide the applicant with an additional amount or such monthly or period amount as the court may deem fit and appropriate. The matter to date does not appear to have any wrinkles. The difficulty is not far off.
However, the words of Section 25 clause 2 immediately following subsection 1 without obtaining assurance that if the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of any party at the time after making an order under subsection (1), in the case of any party, vary or revoke any order as the court may deem fit.
The clause mentioned is concerned with the ambiguity of the material. Our first concern is the nature of the fact that the provision in question appears to be inconsistent with the “end” of the law. This is limited to the side of legal review and the power of appeal to a higher court. The legal purpose of section 2 of section 25 of the Act does not appear to be in force in this regard. This provision provides for an endless series of pending cases between the same parties whose order under subsection 1 has been passed by the court. Section 2 of section 25 of the Act provides for the unlimited and unconditional recognition of the court to vary, alter and overturn an order made under subsection (1). In order to clarify the purpose of the legislature during the implementation of the said provision, it is important to shed light on the concept of observance of the Hindu Act and its inclusion in the Act.
Maintenance under Hindu Law
The two types of maintenance under Hindu law are as follows:
Temporary Maintenance:
Temporary maintenance is provided by the court if the party does not have a powerful means of earning money to support itself. There are no rules on the amount of maintenance, and it is up to the court to decide how much money the applicant has to maintain during the process.
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stipulates that both husband and wife can apply for temporary maintenance.
Eternal Preservation:
Permanent maintenance is payable by one party in the event of a divorce, and the amount is determined by a petition filed in the relevant court. Section 25 of the Act states that a court may order a non-applicant to pay a requester a lump sum or a lump sum for the rest of his or her life. However, the party may not be eligible for retention if there are changes in their circumstances.
Judgment
Although the wife has stated in the affidavit that she earns a sum of Rs. 4000 to 5000 a month in revenue is not that much money. From our point of view, the family court approach is fair and reasonable. Therefore no interruptions are required. As a result, both appeals are dismissed without an expense order. Needless to say, the interim order, if any, has been left out. 8.4.2010.
Judgment Analysis
What the applicant says in the application and the affidavit is that she is a woman who is an educated businesswoman and has previous experience of managing the industry as well as knowledge of the work done ahead of time. Touching his income and the same sources he earns states that he owns one Laxmi store where his monthly income is Rs. 1200 to 1500 / -. He then allegedly owns an STD shop / general store in Nashik under the name Vasundhara Enterprises where he earns Rs. 4000 to 5000. The business premises are said to be his. It is also reported that by typing a business, he earns more than Rs. 2500 / -.
Further details are also provided by the respondent-wife, such as the initial amount estimated to be invested in the proposed properties to be taken from the Company’s lease and the expected revenue from that business. If the statements made in the affidavit are considered to be true and correct, then the respondent’s wife has indeed suppressed the relevant facts while receiving the order for permanent support. The non-disclosure of relevant facts and the suppression of tangible facts resulted in the family court granting a permanent grant of Rs.600 / – to 5.8.91 and, therefore, up to Rs.800 / – per month in 1995.
The court first observed that the defendant-wife had deliberately suppressed her money and thus obtained a court order for misrepresentation and continued to cancel the grant of permanent maintenance from her husband’s date of application. We have applied the decision, and the decision was appealed by the family court under section 25 (2) of the Act. We see no reason to interfere with the disclosure of the evidence by the family court affecting the respondent’s money. The idea taken is very big—no need to be distracted.
The appellant’s learned attorney submitted that the family court should have issued the necessary guidance to the respondent-wife to return the amount she received from her in respect of maintenance. The amount received is a small amount of Rs. 600 / – per month from 1991 to 1995 and after that up to Rs. 800 / – from 1995 onwards. The respondent’s wife was not given and has not yet received the large amount of money that needs to be directed at the receipt of that amount because the parties were husband and wife in a relationship.
It turns out that the court should have taken action against the accused of leading false evidence. The trial court took a different view of the matter by not allowing the dispute’s size to escalate between the parties. There is no reason to force parties to continue prosecuting such crimes. Although the wife has stated in the affidavit that she earns a sum of Rs. 4000 to 5000 a month in revenue is not that much money. From our point of view, the family court approach is fair and reasonable. Therefore no interruptions are required.
Conclusion
The alimony comes as a consolation to those who are unable to take care of themselves for their reasons and conditions. This arrangement has made it possible for many to care for themselves and their families. The court allows, depending on the income and assets of the husband or wife, to be given to their partner and to make a decision. It also depends on the law under which the application for maintenance is filed.
References:
- Deshpande, Arun Kashinath Deshpande v. Smt. Inumati Ramchandra Deo, legitquest, (8 April, 2010), https://www.legitquest.com/case/arun-kashinath-deshpande-v-smtinumati-ramchandra-deo/13E46
- Legalkazam, Maintenance under Hindu law, legal services, (7 April, 2010), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1884-maintenance-under-hindu-law.html
-2010-4-252%5D){kind=link}
0 Comments