- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Sec tion 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-10-1996, in Original Suit No. 41 of 1995, passed by learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, whereby the petition of the respondent was al lowed for permanent alimony, directing the appellant to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance to her.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant got married to the re spondent according to Hindu rites in the month of November, 1978. It ap pears that the respondent filed a di vorce petition in the year 1989, against her husband (appellant), which was decreed ex-parte and the marriage be tween the parties was dissolved. Thereafter, in the year 1995, the respondent filed a petition under section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for perma nent alimony, claiming Rs. 5. 000/- per month as maintenance from the appel lant (divorced husband), which was registered as Original Suit No. 41 of 1995. It was alleged in the petition that income of the appellant is Rs. 20,000/ - per month and the respondent (di vorced wife) has no means to maintain herself. Shri Bhim Datt (appellant/ di vorced husband), contested the petition for permanent alimony and filed his written statement before the learned District Judge. (There is no family court established in Tehri Garhwal ). In the written statement, it is alleged by the appellant that his monthly income is only Rs. 1,000/- per month. It was fur ther alleged by him that the respond ent (petitioner before trial court) was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month as sal ary from working as Sahyogini in Mahila Samakhya. The learned trial court framed following issues in the suit 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to permanent alimony ? if so, what should be the adequate al lowance to be paid to the peti tioner by the respondent ? 2. Whether the petitioner has suffi cient means to maintain herself? If so, whether the petitioner is not entitled to claim any main tenance allowance 1 3. To what relief, if any, is the peti tioner entitled ? After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant is the owner of taxies and has sufficient means to pay the maintenance while the respondent (petitioner before the trial court) has no sufficient means to maintain herself as such, al lowed the petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for per manent alimony, directing that the appellant shall pay to the respondent Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance. Aggrieved by said judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred. We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the appellant got married to the respondent in the year 1978 and marriage between them has already been dissolved. It is also not disputed that the present respondent did not get remarried after dissolution of the marriage. The dispute relates as to the fact whether the appellant has sufficient means to pay the mainte nance and whether the present re spondent is unable to maintain herself or not ? From the evidence on record, it is clear that though in the written statement, the appellant has alleged that he is a taxi driver but in his state ment as D. W. I, he has admitted that he owns taxi. He has admitted that he earns Rs. 6,000/ - per month through his business. As far as income of di vorced wife is concerned, though it is alleged by the appellant as against the present respondent that she was earn ing Rs. 2,000/- per month by doing work as Sahyogini with Mahila Samakhya and is also doing work of sewing, knitting and training other la dies in that field, but neither the work of Sahyogini in Mahila Samakhya nor sewing or knitting can be said to be a permanent source of income. The present respondent cannot be expected to starve for the want of maintenance as such, sewing, knitting or working as Sahyogini in Mahila Smakhaya, cannot be said to be her regular source of in come. It has come on the record that for attending meetings as Sahyogini in Mahila Samakhya, the respondent used to get Rs. 200/- per meeting. It is not clear that for how long the respondent may continue as Sahyogini. In the cir cumstances, we are in full agreement with the findings of the learned lower court that the petitioner (present re spondent) was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month from her divorced husband who was found to have been earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appel lant argued that the amount of Rs. 1,000/- should be reduced to Rs. 500/- per month, as he was so allowed vide interim order in the appeal at the time of admission of the appeal. Allahabad High Court has stayed impugned order on condition that the appellant contin ues to pay maintenance to the respond ent @ Rs. 500/- per month.;