Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Chand Sharma vs Ms Madhu Sharma on 8 February, 2011
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.176-M of 2004 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.02.2011
Subhash Chand Sharma ....Appellant
versus
Ms Madhu Sharma ....Respondent
II. FAO No.225-M of 2004 (O&M)
Mrs. Madhu Sharma ....Appellant
versus
Subhash Chand Sharma ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO
No.176-M of 2004 and for respondent in FAO No.225-M of
2004.
None for the appellant in FAO No.225-M of 2004 and for
respondent in FAO No.176-M of 2004.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. Two appeals are connected, one by the wife in FAO No. 225-M of 2004 for enhancement of maintenance granted in her favour and another at the instance of the husband in FAO No.176-M of 2004 seeking for its reduction. The parties are divorced couple and a petition FAO No.176-M of 2004 (O&M) -2- had been filed for permanent alimony by the wife seeking for enhancement of claim of maintenance which she was receiving at Rs.1,200/- from her husband. The husband had been an employee in government service, drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- when a maintenance of Rs.1,200/- had been awarded. Subsequently, after the divorce and when the wife had moved an application for determination of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the husband had retired from the service and had become a pensioner. On the wife's side, on the other hand, the mother was supporting two of her children, but one had taken appointment and she was examined as PW3 and who admitted that she was drawing a salary of Rs.4,000/-. Yet another daughter was also an adult and although unmarried at that time, the Tribunal found that, two daughters could not have taken as dependents on the mother. I do not have the benefit of the particulars relating to the daughters' status now, but I do not want to disturb the finding that the daughters are not any longer dependents on their mother.
2. The learned counsel for the husband would contend that the wife is provided for better and the direction for payment of maintenance @ Rs.1,600/- per month, when he was himself drawing merely Rs.5,300/- as pension would be unjustified. He would also contend that there was an admission in her evidence that she was taking tuition for some children and she was also carrying on an avocation of stitching. If there is an admission relating to the wife taking tuition, it should be taken on the whole and the evidence cannot be truncated or added. I do not find any admission that she was collecting money from the children FAO No.176-M of 2004 (O&M) -3- to whom she was taking tuition. If a man is earning Rs.5,300/- and would complain that even the provision for maintenance of Rs.1,600/- is high, it has to be rejected by the only fact that he still has Rs.3,700/- as residual amount, which is even twice as much as what is provided to the wife. A contribution to the tune of about 25 to 30% as maintenance would be always seen to be just and the assessment by the trial Court increasing the maintenance from Rs.1,200 to Rs.1,600, I would find to be reasonable and see no scope for intervention either way. Both appeals, therefore, stand dismissed and the decree passed by the Court below will stand confirmed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.02.2011 sanjeev