Budihal R.B., J. - (1.)HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife on admission.
(2.)LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the petitioner was paying Rs. 50,000/ - per month to the respondent/wife. At that time he was working at Spain and he was earning good income, therefore, he was able to make the payment. But now he is aged 75 years and he is not getting any such income at present. Therefore, the financial capacity of the petitioner/husband i.e., whether he is capable to pay that much amount or not is not at all considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. He has submitted that petitioner is not capable to make payment of amount as awarded by the Trial Court.
It is also his contention that petitioner is not at all examined before the Trial Court. So far as the document Exhibit P -30, the declaration is concerned, there are so many corrections carried out and whether the corrections were carried out by the petitioner or the respondent, the Trial Court has not made any effort to ascertain the same. He has also submitted that the children of the respondent are grown up and even for them also claim was made by the respondent/wife. Hence, he has submitted that in view of these infirmities in the orders of the Courts below, the matter may be admitted.

(3.)PER contra, learned counsel for the respondent/wife has submitted that even the respondent/wife is also suffering from old age and is present before the Court. It is also his submission that in the objection statement filed by the petitioner/husband before the Trial Court, execution of the declaration agreement as per Exhibit P -30 is admitted and even the payment of Rs. 50,000/ - per month is also admitted. He has also submitted that when the petitioner has arrayed as party to the proceedings and when the objection statement was filed, nothing prevented the petitioner to come before the Court and give oral evidence in support of his contentions. Inspite of such opportunity, he has not turned up nor given his evidence before the Court. Therefore, it cannot be a ground for the petitioner to appear before this Court.