JUDGMENT
H.H. Kantharia, J.
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Pune allowing the respondent-husband’s petition and declaring the marriage between the appellant and the respondent null and void under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act and ordering the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 200 per month to the appellant from the date of the decree as permanent alimony.
2. The marriage between the appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband, according to Hindu Vedic Rites, took place on 14th March, 1988 at Pune. It appears that they lived together for few days and on the husband coming to know that the wife was suffering from leprosy they parted company from the month of April or May, 1988. Ever since thereafter they are living separately from each other. The husband filed marriage petition in the Family Court at Pune to declare the marriage null and void on the ground that a fraud was committed on him as the fact that the wife was suffering from leprosy was not disclosed at the time of marriage. The petition was resisted by the wife on the ground that all, including her husband, knew the family background well and several meetings had taken place between the parties before the marriage. The respondent-husband had even taken her out on several occasions before marriage and thereafter had proposed and persuaded her for the marriage. She had some skin disease due to insect bite but as the husband’s parents were conservative they suspected that she was suffering from leprosy and on such false allegation the petition for dissolution of marriage and/or declaring the same to be null and void was filed. She also contended that the husband was doing tailoring business from which he was earning good income and she should be granted monthly allowance of Rs. 1,500 as maintenance.
3. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the wife was suffering from leprosy but the same was not virulent and incurable. He further held that the fact that the wife was suffering from leprosy before marriage was suppressed from the husband and, therefore, there was no legal obstacle in passing the decree of nullity or dissolution of marriage. He accordingly declared the marriage between the appellant and the respondent null and void and granted the wife monthly maintenance of Rs. 200 as maintenance from the date of the decree as permanent alimony.
4. Now, the record shows and the learned trial Judge correctly held that the wife before her marriage was suffering from leprosy although the same was not virulent and incurable and that this fact was not brought to the notice of the respondent-husband before the marriage. Under the circumstances the learned trial Judge was not wrong in declaring the marriage between the parties null and void under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, we see no reason for interfering with the learned trial Judge’s finding and judgment with regard to the declaration of marriage as null and void. We, therefore, confirm that part of the decree passed by the learned trial Judge.
5. However, as regards the amount of alimony, we are not inclined to confirm the same as the monthly allowance of Rs. 200 as maintenance is too inadequate a sum in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was averred by the appellant – wife in her written statement that her husband was carrying on tailoring business in the name and style of Ameet Tailors and had a shop in which three or four workmen were working and that his monthly income therefrom was about Rs. 3,000. It is no doubt true that supporting evidence in respect thereof has not been adduced by either side before the Trial Court but regard being had to the fact that three to four workmen were working in the tailoring shop of the respondent husband it would be legitimate to infer that the respondent-husband must be earning income of around Rs. 3,000 per month. That being so, monthly allowance of Rs. 200 as and by way of alimony to the wife is too inadequate. Although the appellant-wife had demanded Rs. 1,500 per month, we are not inclined to grant her demand for so much an amount as maintenance but we feel that monthly allowance of Rs. 500 as and by way of maintenance to the appellant-wife will meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case. We accordingly enhance the amount of maintenance from Rs. 200 to Rs. 500 per month. However, enhancement order of maintenance will come into effect from 1st March, 1994.
6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge declaring the marriage between the parties null and void is confirmed. However, the monthly allowance of maintenance is increased from Rs. 200 to Rs. 500 effective from 1st March, 1994. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.