M. Jeyapaul, J. - (1.) C.M. No. 17470 -CII of 2012. The application is filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. It has been contended by the applicant that he was not having sufficient funds to engage an Advocate to file the appeal. After arranging necessary fund he contacted his counsel and filed the appeal. Though, the above reason is found not convincing, considering the lesser period of delay and the object of delivering justice on merit without standing on technicalities, we are of the view that the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed. C.M. No. 17472 -CII of 2012 The petition praying for stay of the operation of the impugned judgment stands dismissed as infructuous as the main appeal has been heard and disposed of today. C.M. No. 6274 -CII of 2013 The petition is filed invoking Section 151 CPC seeking permission to place on record a photo copy of the appellant's physical disability certificate dated 22.2.2013 issued by PGI, Chandigarh. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the above certificate was issued only during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, the said certificate which was issued by PGI, Chandigarh may be permitted to be placed on record, it is submitted. The reply filed by the respondent and his testimony before the trial court were thoroughly scanned by us. He had not set up a plea that he was a physically handicapped person and, therefore, he was not in a position to maintain his wife by paying maintenance. Therefore, the appellant husband cannot be permitted to place on record the physical disability certificate issued during the pendency of this appeal. Further, the applicant should have filed an application invoking order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to lead additional evidence but quite unfortunately the petition has been filed just to place on record a photo copy of the disability certificate invoking Section 151 CPC. At any rate we find that the above document does not have any bearing on the earning capacity of the appellant, inasmuch as he had not contended before the trial Court that he has incurred disability and, therefore, he was not able to maintain his wife. For all these reasons, we find that the application deserves dismissal. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. FAO No. M -182 of 2012
(2.) THE husband Deepak Parthi has preferred the appeal challenging the permanent alimony of Rs. 5000/ - per month granted to his wife Bhominder Kaur Pabla under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for fixing permanent alimony. The respondent Bhominder Kaur Pabla has contended in her petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act that she was the legal wedded wife of the appellant. She filed a petition for divorce and the same was granted on 19.8.2010. The said judgment has become final. The respondent is an unemployed woman. She is unable to maintain herself. Whereas, the appellant is earning more than Rs. 10 lacs per year from various groups of telecommunications. He also undertakes tours often to attend the work of telecommunication companies. He has purchased a house at Sector 20, Panchkula. He had the capacity to pay a sum of Rs. 38,000/ - per month as installment towards the loan raised for purchasing house at Panchkula. Contending that the respondent was not remarried, she claimed permanent alimony invoking Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
(3.) THE appellant filed his reply contending that the respondent has sufficient source of income and she is gainfully engaged in reliance retail company as an employee. She is MBA graduate. The appellant previously served in a telecommunication company but his income was not sufficient to meet the extravagant lifestyle of the respondent. The appellant was in depression and, therefore, he lost his job. Contending that he was not earning at present and was depending on the charities of his relatives and friends, he sought for dismissal of the petition.;