Sudhir Jain vs Prema Jain
2004 Latest Caselaw 917 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. FAO 424 of 2000 is directed against the judgment dated 25.9.2000 of the Additional District Judge in HMA No. 41/2000 disposing of a petition under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') moved by Ms. Prema Jain for enhancement of permanent alimony granted. The learned Judge held that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance from 01.10.2000 is appropriate.

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Additional District Judge are as under ''-

''The respondent (appellant before this court) was the husband of the petitioner (respondent before this court). The marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce by the court then presided over by Shri S.R. Goel, ADJ, Delhi. On 3.3.2, Ms. Usha Mehra, the then ADJ, Delhi, fixed permanent alimony @ Rs. 400/- per month for the petitioner and two minor children. An appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble High Court. Mr. Justice N.N. Goswami was pleased to enhance the maintenance from Rs. 400/- per month to Rs. 600/- per month vide order dated 19.7.84. The maintenance which have been granted by the High Court on 19.7.94, is sought to be enhanced by moving the application under Section 25(2) of Hindu Marriage Act. It is claimed in the petition that the respondent sometimes remits the maintenance and sometimes not which is causing drastic problems. The respondent is living in a lavish style. The respondent has got colour TV, VCR etc. and the children born out of the marriage between the respondent and the next wife after the divorce are studying in DAV Public School where the respondent is paying @ Rs. 250/- per month. The petitioner claimed that the petitioner is totally unemployed. In a city like Delhi the prices of the things are shooting day by day. Earlier the petitioner was getting a financial help from his brother -in-law who was at Aligarh. The said financial help has also been stopped. The petitioner has not remarried. The petitioner needs a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for maintenance of the family including the kitchen expenses.''

3. The learned Judge noted that Rs. 600/- as maintenance had been fixed by the High Court with effect from 3.7.1987 and since then the cost of living index has risen. According to him, the rise in the value of property as per the inflation index for the year 1981-82 was Rs. 100/- and for the year 1982-83 it was Rs. 109/-; in the month of July, 1982, the cost of index will lie between or around Rs. 103/- and in the year 1999-2000 it was Rs. 389/-. Considering the same the learned Judge noted that applicant-wife would be entitled to maintenance fixed at Rs. 2,400/- per month and, thereafter, taking into consideration that the petitioner has re-married and got two other children to support, thought it fit to fix the maintenance at Rs. 2,000/- per month.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment under challenge is bad on account of the criteria adopted by the trial court inasmuch as dividing the income into one-half when the children of the first marriage are earning sufficient income dis-entitling them from any maintenance.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment under challenge. It appears to me that the learned Judge, while adopting the criteria of inflation cost formula, has arrived at a conclusion that the wife-applicant is entitled to Rs. 2,000/- per month. He has not, in any manner, held that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,000/- is on account of maintenance towards the applicant-wife together with children of the first marriage. It is, therefore, wrong to submit that the maintenance has been awarded incorrectly. The reasoning of the learned Judge in the judgment under challenge appears to be sound as for increase in maintenance the inflation cost formula is good criteria.

6. In this view of the matter, I find no infirmity, impropriety, perversity, illegality and/or jurisdictional error in the judgment under challenge. FAO 424 of 2000 and C.M. 1328 of 2002 are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Counsel for the respondent informs me that a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, which is a part of the arrears of maintenance, is lying deposited in this case. Let the same be released to the respondent.