Full Judgment
V.A. Mohta, J.
1. The Family Court, Bombay, has granted a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance from the date of the filing of the petition to the Respondent-Original Applicant, and aggrieved thereby original Respondent No. 1 has filed this Appeal.
2. The principal controversy before the Family Court was whether the Petitioner was legally married to Respondent No. 1. The case of the Petitioner is that the marriage took place about 12 years before in village Diwai in U.P. Respondent No. 1 Rajkumar is serving as a cook in Holiday Inn, in Bombay. Respondent No. 2 Maya Kanchi is his second wife. The Petitioner was living in the family house of the Respondent at Balarampur and she was occasionally visiting Bombay where her parents also reside. The Respondent also used to come to the village 4-5 times in a year and used to co-habit with the Petitioner. The Respondent started behaving rudely with her for no reason. Some time prior to 1988 she was mercilessly assaulted and driven out from the matrimonial home at Balarampur, as a result she had no other choice but to come to Bombay to stay with her parents. A notice was served upon the Respondent after receipt of which the Petitioner was taken back to the village in the beginning of May T 989. The Respondent came to the village again, assaulted her and again drove her out of the house. It is, thereafter, that the Petitioner came to know that the Respondent No. 1 had married another woman-Respondent No. 2.
3. The defence of the Respondent is that no marriage took place. The Petitioner was a domestic servant in his father's house in the village. She was staying in the house in that capacity.
4. At the trial, the parties entered into witness-box and examined several witnesses including close relations. The Petitioner has given a detailed account of the marriage ceremony. She is an illiterate lady from a village and her version about marriage ceremony is too detailed to be a figment of imagination. It is the Respondent's own case that she has been living in the family house four years together. The story that the Petitioner has been set up by the real brother of Respondent No. 1 because of some family dispute, is not at all substantiated. The Respondent No. 1 has produced no evidence in support. Indeed he has made no reference even to the details of the dispute. The statement is too casual to be relied upon Close relative mediator, Banwarilal, a villager with whose evidence the learned Family Court was impressed, has given detailed account of the marriage.
5. The defence appears to be wholly unnatural. The Trial Court has given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties was proved. It is unnecessary to discuss the very same reasoning over again. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent was earning approximately 2500/- per month. According to the Respondent, his salary was 1600/- per month. In this background, quantum of maintenance cannot be said to be unjust.
6. A grievance was made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there was no justification for rejecting an application for engaging a Lawyer filed by Respondent No. 1. A grievance was also made that the witnesses have not been examined in proper order.
7. Having regard to the issues involved, we do not think that the impugned judgment can be interfered with on those grounds in the absence of prejudice and subject the illiterate and poor wife to another round of litigation.
8. A grievance was made also about the quantum of maintenance. It is true that the Respondent has not been asked any question about her income from manual labour. But that is not the decisive of the matter. Less than 1/3rd of the undisputed salary has been the basis of the maintenance which is quite just and fair. Broad view in the fixation of the maintenance has to be taken.
9. For all these reasons, we see no merit in this Appeal. It is dismissed. No order as to costs.