JUDGMENT
S.S. Saraon, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant wife against the order dated 1.4.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, in pursuance of which the application of the respondent husband under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the grant of permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 700/-p.m. till his life, was partly allowed. The appellant wife was to pay Rs. 250/- per month to the respondent by way of alimony or maintenance. The order was effective from the date of application i.e., 19.5.1990.
2. Notice of motion was issued in the case on 4.6.1991 and the operation of the impugned order was stayed. Thereafter the case was admitted by this Court on 30.8.1991 and the stay granted earlier was ordered to continue. Earlier the case was also taken up before the Hon’ble Lok Adalat and efforts were make to compromise the matter but the efforts failed and the case was sent back to this Court for its decision on merits on 24.1.2000. Despite intimation the learned counsel for the respondent has not appeared.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 23.1.1987 and after marriage the parties, resided and cohabited at village Hariana district Hoshiarpur. No child was born out of the wedlock between the parties. The wife earlier filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty. The said petition of the wife was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge Hoshiarpur vide his judgment and decree dated 6.8.1990. In pursuance of the same the case of the appellant wife that the respondent had treated her with cruelty stood established and proved.
4. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition for divorce, the respondent filed an application under Section 25 of the Act seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month. In the application, it was contended by the respondent that during the pendency of divorce proceedings, he was granted Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance pendente lite from his wife who was earning more than Rs. 2000/- per month whereas he was unemployed and had no source of income.
5. The wife resisted the said application on the ground that in fact the appellant had a flourishing business and he was running a typewriting and shorthand training School at Hariana, District Hoshiarpur besides he also had landed property and was doing the work of a television mechanic. He was in this manner earning more than Rs. 3000/- per month whereas she was getting salary of Rs. 1500/- per month most of which was spent on bus fares. The wife also stated that her husband treated her with cruelty as she could not fulfill the dowry demand of Rs. 40,000/-. It was also stated that the husband was an able bodied person and even if he worked as a labourer he could easily earn Rs. 900/-per month.
6. On these pleadings the learned trial court framed the following issues:-
1. What amount, if any, is the petitioner entitled by way of permanent alimony and maintenance from the respondent? OPP
2. Relief.
The learned trial court, however, as already noticed above granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month.
7. I have heard Sh. M.S. Kang, learned counsel for the appellate and with his assistance gone through the records of the case.
8. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant has filed C.M. No. 22652/-CII of 2002 in the present appeal for placing on record a copy of the judgment dated 27.1.1993 passed by this Court between the parties in FAO No. 156-M of 1999 whereby the appeal by the respondent husband against the afore-referred judgment and decree 6.8.1990 granting a decree for divorce in favour of the appellant wife had been dismissed. Besides, the appellant also prays for placing on record a copy of, the certificate from the Lambardar of village Hariana, District Hoshiarpur, counter signed by the Municipal Commissioner, certifying that the respondent husband has married. On the strength of the same the learned counsel for the appellant prays that this appeal be also dismissed. Insofar the certificate from the Lambardar is concerned, in my view, the same can be taken on record only by way of additional evidence in accordance with Order 47 Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. The same is not a judgment which is per se admissible in evidence. However, the judgment dated 27.1.1993 is a judgment of this Court and is between the same parties and is per se admissible. Therefore, the said Civil Misc. application is partly allowed and the copy of the order dated 27.1.1993 passed by this Court is taken on record. However, the same is, dismissed insofar as the certificate of the Lambardar counter signed by the Municipal Commissioner is concerned.
9. It is contended on behalf of the appellant wife that at the time of marriage the respondent husband was approximately 23 years of age and he was a matriculate and had done some training in television repair and was also assisting his father in learning typing and shorthand training centre at Hariana. This contention has remained unrebuted by the respondent. It may also be noticed that the fact of the appellant wife being subjected to cruelty has been established in the judgment and decree dated 6.8.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, which stands affirmed by this Court. It has been alleged by the appellant that the respondent used to beat her occasionally and on one occasion even gave her a stab injury. She was turned out of the house and her in-laws raised repeated demands. It was also her case that she resided at her parental house as the respondent had sprinkled kerosene on her with an intention to burn her. This Court in its judgment dated 27.1.1993 passed between the parties in FAO No. 156-M of 1990 after considering the material on record held that the wife had established her case of cruelty against the husband and consequently dismissed the appeal.
10. I have perused the said judgment. As already noticed above, the wife had filed a petition for grant of divorce which was allowed by the learned trial Court and the appeal against the same has been dismissed. The same, therefore, shows that the appellant wife was indeed been subjected to cruelty. The said judgment operates as res judicata between the parties.
11. The question then arises is whether the respondent is in the facts and circumstances of the case entitled to permanent alimony from his wife. The appellant wife has denied that she is liable to pay any maintenance to the respondent. From the evidence and material on record and the contention of the appellant that at the time of marriage the respondent husband was approximately 23 years of age and he was a matriculate. Besides, he had done some training in television repair and was also assisting his father in the typing and shorthand training centre at Hariana remains unrebutted. Therefore, it cannot be said that the husband has no means to maintain himself and that he is entitled for maintenance from his wife. Besides, he is an able bodied man and all able bodies persons are expected to maintain themselves and are not expected to claim maintenance from their wives.
12. Therefore, in the afore-noted circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the
respondent-husband is an able bodied man, it would be grossly iniquitous for directing
the appellant wife to maintain her husband and that too when he has not even put in appearance to oppose the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order dated
1.4.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, is set aside. No
costs.