Kerala High Court
Dr. Gladstone vs Geetha Gladstone And Anr. on 5 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: I(2003)DMC617, 2003 A I H C 442, (2003) 1 DMC 617, (2002) 1 KER LJ 788, (2003) 1 MARRILJ 683, (2002) 4 RECCRIR 820
Author: K. Padmanabhan Nair
Bench: J.B. Koshy, K. Padmanabhan Nair
JUDGMENT K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.
1. Defendant in O.S. 308 of 1995 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapurarn filed this appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Court below awarding an amount of Rs. 1,500/- to the first plaintiff and Rs. 2,756/- to minor second plaintiff per mensem as maintenance with effect from 14th August, 1993.
2. The appellant married the first respondent on 12th August, 1982 as per the customary rites. The second respondent is their daughter. At the time of marriage, the appellant was practising as Physician in a private nursing home. In the year 1986, he was appointed as Assistant Surgeon, E.S.I. Hospital, Chavara, Puthenthura. From the year 1989 onwards the plaintiffs and defendant started residing at their house at Kumarapuram near Medical College. The appellant got admission for Master of Surgery in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram in 1992. According to the respondents, on 14th August, 1993, the appellant-defendant deserted them and started residing in the hostel attached to the Medical College and thereafter he is not maintaining them. It is also alleged that subsequently the appellant developed illicit intimacy with a Staff Nurse, by name "Chandrika" working in the Medical College and is now residing with her. It is admitted that the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 2,34,000/- in the joint names of the appellant and first respondent authorising the first respondent to withdraw the monthly interest amounting to Rs. 2,600/-. According to the first respondent, she was forced to withdraw the amount of Rs. 2,34,000/- deposited in the joint names of the appellant and first respondent to repay the debts due from the appellant to her brother and sister. It is averred that the appellant is getting more than Rs. 40,000/- per mensem from different sources. The first respondent claimed Rs. 3,000/- as monthly maintenance for herself and Rs. 6,750/ to the minor second respondent. It is also alleged that since the appellant deserted the respondents on 14th August 1993, he is liable to pay maintenance from that date onwards. So, they had claimed an amount of Rs. 2,24,250/- as past maintenance and Rs. 3,000/- to the first respondent and Rs. 6,750/- to the second respondent as future maintenance.
3. The appellant contended that the suit is not maintainable. The marriage and status of the respondents are admitted. It is admitted that the appellant and the first respondent lived together till 12th January, 1992. It was also contended that on 1st December, 1992 the 1st respondent prevented the appellant from entering the house. According to the appellant, the 1st respondent treated him with cruelty and drove him out of the matrimonial home. It was contended that because of the insistence of the first respondent the appellant sold away all his properties and deposited an amount of Rs. 2,34,000/- in National Service Scheme at Medical College Post Office in the joint account of both the appellant and first respondent and the first respondent was drawing an amount of Rs. 2,600/- per mensem as interest. It was contended that after the filing of the suit the first respondent had withdrawn the amount and she is in possession of the same. It was also contended that the appellant had deposited another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the Bank in the name of the first respondent on 23rd December, 1992 and that amount was also withdrawn by the first respondent. It was contended that when the appellant got admission for the Post Graduate course he shifted the residence to the hostel for the convenience of study. It was contended that during that time he used to visit the respondents. The averment that he is living with Chandrika is denied. The contention that he borrowed amounts from the brother and sister of the first respondent was denied. It was contended that the first respondent is getting income from various sources. The averment that he is getting more than Rs. 40,000/- per mensem is denied. The quantum of maintenance claimed is also denied.
4. The Family Court decreed the suit in part. The husband-defendant has filed this appeal challenging that part of the judgment awarding maintenance.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the parties are Nadar Christians apart from the provisions contained in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no statutory provision which creates an obligation on a Nadar Christian to pay maintenance to his wife and children. It is also contended that there is no customary law or practice which entitles the wife belonging to the above said community to claim maintenance from her husband and hence the suit itself is not maintainable. It is contended that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person is liable to pay Rs. 500/- each to the wife and child and even if it is found that under the customary law also person is liable to pay maintenance to wife and child, his liability is limited to pay that amount only which is necessary to meet the bare necessities and not the amounts claimed by the wife according to her whims and fancies.
6. Firstly we shall consider the contention of the appellant that a person belonging to Nadar Christian community has no obligation to maintain his wife and child except in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as there is no specific statutory provision which creates an obligation on the part of the husband. It is true that apart from the provisions contained in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no specific statutory provision which creates an obligation on a Nadar Christian to maintain his wife and child. In Indian Divorce Act there are provisions which enable the Court to award maintenance to the wife and children. But those provisions can be invoked only in a suit filed for judicial separation or divorce.
7. Every Indian citizen is bound to maintain his wife and children. That is a tradition of the society. The liability of a Christian to maintain his wife came up for consideration before the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Cheriya Varkey v. Quseph Thresia and Ors., AIR 1955 Travancore-Cochin 255. The Court observed thus :
"In matters not governed by statute or customary law, it is the principles of justice, equity and good conscience' that should apply, and it is supposed that those principles are to be found in the Common Law of England. Under that law the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife is not a mere moral obligation but is a legal obligation which could be enforced in law although not by direct action by the wife. Therefore, according to the personal law of the Christians in the Travancore-Cochin State, the husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife. The wife is entitled to claim separate maintenance only if there is justifiable cause for her refusal to live with him. The question whether the wife has justifiable cause for refusing to live with her husband will depend upon the facts of each case. Desertion by the husband and habitual cruelty are recognised as justifiable causes."
A similar matter again came up for consideration before this Court in Scariah Varghese v. Marykutty, II (1991) DMC 262=1991 (2) KLT 71, and a learned Single Judge of this Court following the principle laid down in Cheriya Varkey's case (supra), found that a Christian father has an obligation to maintain his children and wife even though there is no statutory provision. In Chacko v. Annamma, 1993(1) KLT 675, a Division Bench of this Court again considered the obligation of a Christian husband to maintain his wife and found that a Christian husband is liable to maintain his wife. It was held as follows :
"We feel that we are not bound to hold that a Christian husband has no legal liability to maintain the wife. Criminal Law of the country and the Personal Law of Indians of other community make it plainly clear that the husband has got a liability to maintain the wife in certain circumstances. This obligation created by the criminal law is certainly applicable to a Christian husband also. The husband is liable to pay maintenance if conditions which would compel the wife to live separately."
A similar matter was again considered by another Division Bench of this Court in Joy v. Usha, IL.R. 1996(2) Kerala 580. It was held as follows:
"Maintenance for judicial purposes has its own pragmatics having relation to the need and necessity to make provisions for securing reasonable bio-economic as well as bio-cultural requirements for persons such as shelter, food, garment and health. The need to provide reliefs of maintenance emanate from social ethics and personal economics and this need is sought for both on the moral and secular grounds. Maintenance is a personal obligation and where there is estate, the rights in maintenance could be worked against the estate and there can be charge upon it."
We do not find any reason to differ from the consistent view taken by this Court hitherto regarding the liability of a Christian to maintain his wife and children. So, there is no merit in the contention raised by the appellant that in view of the absence of any statutory provision a suit claiming maintenance by a Christian lady and the child against a Nadar Christian is not maintainable. So, we hold that the suit is maintainable.
8. Now we shall consider whether the respondents had established any justifiable cause for living separately from the appellant because it is a well-accepted principle of law that the wife is entitled to claim separate maintenance only if there is justifiable cause for refusal to live with him. In Cheriya Varkey's case (supra), it was held that desertion by the husband and habitual cruelty are recognised as justifiable causes. The fact that the appellant and respondents are living separately is established in this case. According to the respondents, the appellant deserted them on 14th August, 1993 and thereafter he has developed illicit intimacy with Chandrika who is a Staff Nurse attached to the Medical College Hospital. The case of the appellant was that the first respondent-wife treated him with cruelty and finally drove him out of the matrimonial home. So, the question to be considered is how far the respondents are justified in living separately.
9. The marriage between the appellant and first respondent was solemnised in the year 1982. At that time, the appellant was having private practice and he was running a private hospital. In the year 1986 he was appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the E.S.I. Hospital, Chavara, Puthenthura. It is admitted by P.W. 1 that from the year 1989 onwards they were living together in the house belonging to them at Kumarapuram near Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is admitted by P.W. 1 herself that after starting their residence at Kumarapuram, the life was smooth for some time and thereafter quarrels took place between herself and her husband. She had admitted (Vernacular matter omitted) It is also admitted by her that the appellant got admission for Post-Graduate course in the year 1992 and after one year, he started residing in the hostel attached to the Medical College stating that this is necessary for his studies. The respondents relied on Exhibit A-l to prove that the appellant deserted the matrimonial home on 14th August, 1993. It is true that the appellant denied the handwriting and signature contained in Exhibit A-l. But, it is seen that it was written on an O.P. Ticket, a stationery paper of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Even though the appellant as D.W. 1 had denied the handwriting in Exhibit A-l, he had admitted that he left the matrimonial home. According to him if he continued to reside in that house, he would have died. At page 31 of the original deposition, the appellant as D.W. 1 had deposed as follows:
(Vernacular matter omitted) So, it is argued that the admission made by the appellant himself shows that he left the matrimonial home on the date of Exhibit A-l and deserted the respondents from that date onwards. Exhibit A-l was dated 14th August, 1993. It is admitted by the 1st respondent that on that date the appellant shifted his residence to the College Hostel. It is admitted by her that thereafter she used to visit the appellant in the hostel daily. It is also admitted by her that the P.G. course was over during November, 1994. It is admitted by P.W. 1 that even while residing in the hostel the appellant used to come to the house. She deposed that (Vernacular matter omitted) The evidence adduced by the respondents themselves shows that the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 2,34,000/- in the joint names of himself and the 1st respondent during February and April, 1994. The first respondent was authorised to withdraw the monthly interest amounting to Rs. 2,600/-. The specific case put forward by the respondents is that while the appellant was studying the P.G. course, he had no income of his own and she gave an amount of Rs. 75,000/- for purchase of books and payment of fee, etc. The evidence adduced by the appellant shows that he took a building on rent during 1986 at Chavara when he was appointed in the E.S.I. Hospital there and he is still residing in that house. The appellant as D.W. 1 had deposed that even though from 1989 he resided with the respondents near Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, he used to go to Chavara and reside in that house also. After completing the P.G. course, the appellant went to Chavara and is residing there. In view of the fact that appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 2,34,000/- during February and April, 1994 in the joint account and allowed the first respondent to withdraw the monthly interest, it cannot be said that he wilfully refused to maintain the respondents while he was studying for P.G. course. According to the appellant the first respondent treated him with cruelty, manhandled him and on many occasions was locked him inside the room. He had also got a case that there was no regular sexual intercourse between himself and his wife. But, those allegations are not proved. So the evidence adduced in this case establishes that the appellant deserted the respondents and left the matrimonial home from December, 1994 and refused to maintain the respondents thereafter.
10. The first respondent has got a case that after deserting her, the appellant developed illicit intimacy with one Chandrika and he is residing with her from 1994 onwards and in that relationship, a child is also born to them. To prove those facts, the respondents relied on Exhibit A-2 and Exhibit X-l. According to the appellant, Exhibit A-2 letter was not written by him. The Court below found that Exhibit A-2 was written by him on the ground that the appellant refused to give his specimen handwriting. The Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the execution of Exhibit A-2 was not properly proved and the reason stated by the learned Judge for relying on Exhibit X-l are illegal. The Court below relied on Exhibit A-2 finding that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the appellant. The Court below has stated that the appellant refused to give his specimen handwriting. On 25th May, 1996, the appellant was examined. The learned Judge had passed an order directing the appellant to give his specimen handwriting. The learned Judge had stated that the appellant though agreed to give specimen handwriting, left the Court without giving specimen handwriting. The appellant did not file any review petition in the Court below or file any petition before this Court to take his specimen handwriting. So, it cannot be said that the Court below was not justified in drawing an adverse inference.
11. The Counsel appearing for the appellant attacked Exhibit X-l. Exhibit X-l is the case-sheet of one Chandrika who was working as Staff Nurse in the Medical College Hospital. It shows that she was admitted in the S.A.T. Hospital on 15th February, 1996 and gave birth to a female child on 19th February, 1996. In the ante-natal chart the address of her husband is stated as "c/o Dr. Gladstone, Ananthi Bhavan, Kannimelachery, Kavandau (P.O.), Kollam Dist.". In the letter-pad of Dr. Valsamma Chacko who attended the patient the name of husband of the patient was written as "w/o Dr. Gladstone, E.S.I. Hospital, Kottayam". In the Summary Sheet the address is given as "c/o Dr. Gladstone (H), Kdarakuzhy Veedu, Koviloor, Kudappanamoodu P.O., Neyyattinkara". The appellant had denied of having any connection with Chandrika. To prove the identity of the persons mentioned in Exhibit X-l, P.W. 4 was examined. But, she had admitted that she had not treated the patient even though the patient was admitted in her unit. She admitted that the delivery was attended by Dr. Valsamma Chacko and she does not know either Chandrika or Dr. Gladstone mentioned in Exhibit X-l. In chief-examination itself she had deposed "Dr. Gladstone (Vernacular matter omitted)". Exhibit X-1 shows that it was Dr. Valsamma Chacko who was consulted by the patient in Exhibit X-1. She was not examined in this case. The specific case put forward by the appellant is that from 1992 onwards he is permanently residing at "Alathur House, Karithara, Chavara Bridge P.O., Kollam". In the plaint also the address of the appellant was stated as "the house of Elizebeth Joseph, Puthenthura, Charara, Kollam District". So, it cannot be conclusively held that it was the appellant who is described as the husband of the patient in Exhibit X-l. But, according to us for the purpose of deciding the issues involved in this case, it is not necessary to decide whether the appellant is living in adultery. The question to be decided is whether the respondents are justified in living separately. Exhibit A-2 is a letter received by the first respondent through post. The appellant has no case that it was fabricated by the 1st respondent to create evidence in this case. During the cross-examination of P. W. 1 the suggestion put to her was to the effect that the statement in Exhibit A-2 that the appellant had underwent a Registered Marriage was not true and was written only to create fear in her mind. In Exhibit X-l at least in one place the name of the husband of the patient is stated as Dr. Gladstone, working at the E.S.I. Hospital, Kottayam. The fact that the appellant was working as a Doctor in E.S.I. Hospital, Kottayam is admitted by him in para 22 of his written statement filed on 2nd December, 1995. Exhibit X-l shows that Smt. Chandrika was examined by the Doctor on 19th November, 1995 and she was admitted in the hospital on 24th November, 1995 also. So, it cannot be said that the case put forward by the first respondent that the appellant is leading an adulterous life with one Chandrika is baseless and unfounded. It is true that the first respondent did not examine Dr. Valsamma Chacko. But, nothing prevented the appellant also from examining Dr. Valsamma Chacko to establish that he was not the person who took the patient referred to in Exhibit X-l to Dr. Valsamma Chacko. So, the evidence adduced in this case clearly establishes that the respondents were justified in living separately from the appellant. In view of the fact that it was the appellant who deserted the respondents and there are justifiable causes for separate residence of the respondents, they are entitled to claim separate maintenance from the appellant.
12. Now we shall consider the quantum or maintenance awarded. The quantum of maintenance awarded is seriously disputed by the appellant. It is argued that since there is no statutory provision as to how the quantum is to be fixed, the Court below ought to have adopted the provisions contained in Section 125, Cr.P.C. while fixing the quantum of maintenance. It is argued that a perusal of the various heads under which maintenance was made by the Court below will show that many of the claims are according to the whims and fancies of the wife. It is true that the quantum of maintenance to be awarded in a suit for maintenance is question of fact. But, the same must be made in accordance with some principles and the same cannot be fixed according to the whims and fancies of the Court awarding the same.
13. The English Ecclesiastical Court has laid down a principle of one-third of the income of the husband for awarding maintenance to the wife. The husband will be ordered to pay to his wife such sum by way of alimony as to bring her income upto one-third of the parties joint income. The English Law Courts enforced the duty of a husband to support and maintain his wife. The wife was entitled to pledge her husband's credit for what is necessary to maintain her in health. In Cheriya Varkey's case (supra), the Travancore-Cochin Court had discussed the law on the point and stated as follows :
"(12) This is what Blackstone says on the subject:
'The husband is bound to provide his wife with necessaries by law, as much as himself; and if she contracts debts for them, he is obliged to pay them, unless he supplies her with necessaries himself.' (Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume I, page 416).
(13) Reference may also be made to Halsbury's Laws of England, page 608, where the learned author says :
'it is the duty of a husband to maintain his wife according to his means of supporting her. If he fails to perform this duty, she has implied authority to pledge his credit for necessaries suitable to his station in life and this authority is not affected by his unsoundness of mind. If the husband deserts his wife or is guilty of misconduct justifying her in leaving him and living apart, and she is without means of support, her implied authority to pledge his credit for necessaries becomes an authority of necessity, which cannot be revoked by the husband.' In the foot-note the learned author refers to New Monckton Collieries Ltd. v. Keeling, 1911 AC 648 (H), wherein it was held that there is no presumption of law that a wife is dependent upon her husband's earning merely because of his legal obligation to maintain her.
(14) The right of the wife to pledge the credit of the husband for purchasing necessaries was discussed by the Court of Exchequer in Read v. Legard, (1851) 155 ER 698 (I), Pollock, C.B. expounded the law thus:
'The true principle seems to be that, when a man marries he contracts an obligation to support his wife and, in point of law, he gives authority to pledge his credit for her support, if circumstances render it necessary, she herself not being in fault.' Alderson, B., said:
'By the marriage contract entered into when the defendant was name, the parties contracted a relation which gave the wife certain rights which the law recognises. It is only necessary for us to say that one of them is, that the wife, is entitled to be supported, according to the estate and condition of her husband.' Specific provisions are made in Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878; Married Women (Maintenance) Act, 1886, etc. which were replaced by Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act of 1895. A discretion was given to the Court to award the amount which it consider as reasonable having regard to the means of both husband and wife. At present provisions are also made in Domestic Proceedings and Magistrate's Courts Act, 1895. In that Act, no limit is fixed as to the quantum for periodical maintenance. But, the Act itself provides the matters which are to be taken into account while fixing the quantum. It includes the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the forseable future, the financial obligations and responsibilities of the spouses, the age of the parties, the standard of living before the break down of the marriage, etc."
14. So far as the Hindus of our country are concerned, at present Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act contains the necessary provisions. In that section no particular ceiling is fixed; but section inter-alia provides the matters to be taken into account by the Court while fixing the quantum. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with permanent alimony to be ordered to be paid to the wife in the proceedings for divorce and judicial separation.
15. Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act deals with alimony pendente lite payable to Christian wife. The proviso to Section 36 states that interim alimony pending suit shall not exceed one-fifth of the husband's average net income for three years immediately preceding the date of the order. Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act also deals with alimony pendente lite. It gives the Court discretion to award interim maintenance having regard to the husband's income which the Court considers it as reasonable.
16. Regarding the permanent alimony no limit is prescribed for the quantum. under Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act, the Court is given discretionary power to fix reasonable maintenance. Various other Indian Statutes contain provisions for payment of permanent alimony and maintenance also. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for permanent alimony and maintenance. Section 25(1) reads as follows :
"Any Court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application, made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the Court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent."
Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act deals with permanent alimony and maintenance. That provision is almost identical to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 37 of the Indian Divorce Act deals with permanent alimony and maintenance payable to a Christian wife. Section 37 also does not fix any limit. A perusal of the various provisions containing Indian matrimonial statutes show that the Court is given the discretion to fix a reasonable amount which it considers necessary for the maintenance of wife and children. No hard and fast rule or strait-jacket formula can be made in fixing that quantum. But, a perusal of relevant sections of the various matrimonial statutes shows that the basis for awarding permanent alimony and maintenance is that the applicant has no sufficient means to maintain herself. The Court shall fix quantum taking into account the following facts also :
"(i) income and other property of the parties;
(ii) conduct of the applicant and non-applicant; and
(iii) any particular or special circumstances."
So, we are not in agreement with the contention raised by the Counsel for the appellant that in the absence of a statutory provision when a Christian wife or child claims maintenance, Court can award only maximum of Rs. 500/- each to the wife and child per mensem. We hold that the Court has got a discretion to fix the quantum and should award a reasonable amount as maintenance to the wife and child who has no sufficient means to maintain themselves. While fixing the quantum, the Court shall take into account the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future; the financial obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future; the standard of living enjoyed by the parties, to the marriage and conduct of the parties, and any other matter which in the circumstances of the case of the Court may consider it relevant.
17. Now we shall proceed to consider how far the amount awarded is reasonable. It is an admitted fact that the appellant deposited Rs. 2,34,000/- in the joint names of himself and first respondent in Post Office Savings Bank at the Post Office at Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The first respondent was drawing an amount of Rs. 2,600/- per mensem as interest. According to the first respondent, the appellant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- each from her brother and sister and when they insisted for repayment of the amount, she withdrew the amount of Rs. 2,34,000/- and paid off the debts. The amount was withdrawn after the institution of the suit. It is true that there was no legal or moral obligation on the first respondent to repay the debt incurred by her husband. The amount was stated to have been borrowed by the appellant for renovating the building in which the respondents are residing. It is also true that the appellant being a Government employee P.Ws. 2 and 3 could have very well proceeded against the appellant for realisation of the debts, if any, due to them. But, their evidence proves that the 1st respondent withdrew the amount kept in Post Office deposits and gave the amounts to them. So, that amount is not available now and respondents are not getting Rs. 2,600/- per mensem. But in Exhibit A-16 dated 3rd January, 1994 the 1st respondent had admitted that she was getting an amount of Rs. 1,500/- as monthly income. P.W. 1 had admitted that the statement is true. It is to be noted that according to the respondents during that period the appellant had no income of his own and the first respondent was supporting him. The Court below has not considered this aspect at all. The learned Judge had found that the first respondent is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per mensem. The only reason stated by the Court below for awarding that amount is that being a wife of a Surgeon having lucrative practice and being a member of a rich family, considering the present day cost of living the quantum of maintenance due to the first respondent is fixed as Rs. 1,500/-. The appellant has produced a document before this Court to prove that he was getting a salary of Rs. 8,190/- as on 5th August, 1997. So, considering the income of the appellant and 1st respondent, we are of the view that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per mensem is sufficient for the maintenance of the first respondent.
18. Now we shall consider the maintenance awarded to the second respondent. The respondents had claimed an amount of Rs. 6,750/- for her maintenance. The Court below awarded Rs. 2,756/-. Even though various amounts were claimed by the respondents, the Court below did not award the entire amount. The operative portion of the order reads as follows :
"Towards tuition fee, I fix an amount of Rs. 256/- p.m. For her food she is awarded Rs. 600/- p.m. For the music teacher she has to pay Rs. 500/-. For school expenses an average of Rs. 400/- p.m. including bus fare, medical expenses is allowed. For tuition and other extra-curricular activities, dance etc. an amount of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. is awarded. For her dress and extra nourishment I award an amount of Rs. 400/- p.m. Thus the total amount comes to Rs. 2,756/-.
If the entire amount stated in this portion were awarded, the total amount would come to Rs. 3,156/- (Rs. 256+600+500+400+1,000+400). An amount of Rs. 400/- is not seen added to the total amount calculated in the order. A reading of the order shows that the Court below fixed an amount of Rs. 256/- for tuition and Rs. 500/- for music tuition. She was awarded an amount of Rs. 600/- per mensem for food, Rs. 400/- per mensem for school expenses and another Rs. 1,000/- for tuition and other extra-curricular activities and another Rs. 400/- for dress and extra nourishment. We are of the view that an amount of Rs. 600/- for food and Rs. 1,400/- for tuition, school expenses including bus fare, medical expenses and extra nourishment are sufficient for the 2nd respondent. So, we hold that the total monthly maintenance the second respondent is eligible to get is Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. 600+1,400). So, while confirming the liability of the appellant to pay maintenance to the respondents, the quantum of monthly maintenance, awarded is reduced to Rs. 1,000/- to the first respondent and Rs. 2,000/- to the second respondent. The appellant is liable to pay the arrears from 1st December, 1994 onwards."
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The finding of the Court below that the appellant is liable to pay maintenance separately to respondents 1 and 2 is confirmed. But, the quantum of monthly maintenance awarded by the Court below is reduced and fixed as Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the first respondent and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the second respondent. Since the first respondent was drawing an amount of Rs. 2,600/- till 13th July, 1995, the appellant is liable to pay the balance of Rs. 400/- (Rupees four hundred only) alone from 1st December, 1994 till 13th July, 1995 to the 2nd respondent. Thereafter he is liable to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs. 2,000/- to the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent is authorised to collect the amount awarded to the 2nd respondent. The parties are directed to suffer their costs throughout.