CHANDRA BEHERA Vs. SUSHAMA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the Judgment & decree dated 24.11.2001 & 10.12.2001, respectively, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in O.S. No. 49 of 1999 decreeing the suit for permanent alimony. The suit for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (for short, the Act) was filed by the wife against her husband after the husband's suit for divorce (O.S. No. 9 of 1994 in the Court of Learned Sub -Ordinate Judge, Berhampur) was decreed ex parte vide Judgment dated 16.4.1996. In the application under Section 25 of the Act, she claimed that with her limited source of income she was not able to give proper education to their son & perform the marriage of their daughter. Claiming that the Appellant Defendant was getting monthly salary of Rs. 7,000, besides pension at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per months annual income of Rs. 1,00,000 from his landed properties she claimed permanent alimony in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000, besides Rs. 2,00,000 towards the education & marriage expenses of the daughter & Rs. 1,00,000 towards the education expenses of the son. She also prayed for litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000.

(2.) DEFENDING the claims made by the Plaintiff, the Defendant took the stand that he was not bound to give any amount for the maintenance of the Plaintiff as well as their son & daughter. Regarding his income the Defendant admitted to the extent that he was getting Rs. 1,727 per month towards pension as an Ex -army person & salary of Rs. 4,177 per month as a Male Nurse employed in M.K.C.G. Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur. It is also contended that at the relevant time the Plaintiff was working as a Teacher getting monthly salary of Rs. 5,680, that the daughter was already gainfully employed in a Nursery School at Kuanarmunda, Rourkela, in the district of Sundargarh & that the son was already in business dealing with Iron & Cement also at Kuanarmunda, Rourkela. It was also contended that both the son & daughter had already become major & with their own income, they were not dependant on anybody.

(3.) THE impugned order has been challenged on the grounds that when the Learned lower Court recorded his own finding that the daughter was married to a Christian boy & the son had attained majority no amount should have been awarded in their favour & that the expenses for children's education as well as marriage being outside the cope of Section 25 of the Act, the Learned Trial Court ought to have framed an issue on the maintainability of the suit & answered the issue. In course of argument, it is also submitted that since the wife was in service & had regular monthly income, the Learned lower Court should not have awarded permanent alimony in her favour.