Judgment:
ORDER
U.C. Maheshwari, J.
1. This appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arising out of judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 245-A/2002, dated 12-5-2003, whereby the counter-claim of appellant/defendant-non-applicant has not been allowed as prayed, for permanent alimony and some ornaments and property, i.e., Stri-dhan.
2. Initially, the petition was submitted by respondent- husband under Section 12(1)(A) read with Sections 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By filing the written statement present appellant filed her counter-claim for returning Stri-dhan ornaments by alleging that those are in possession of respondent-husband and also claimed the permanent alimony and maintenance for her livelihood.
3. In relating to the ornaments and property, i.e., Stri-dhan, after appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court has given findings of Issue No. 2 in Paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment whereby it was found that as per evidence led by the parties, the appellant has not proved that the ornaments and other articles belonging to her remained in possession of respondent-husband arid the possibility could not be ruled out that appellant when left the house of respondent-husband took all the ornaments and other articles with her. Besides this, some articles were found in possession of the respondent for which direction to return them to the appellant has already been issued in Paragraph 22 of the said judgment.
4. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. We do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence. The finding relating to the said issue, in our considered view, is impeccable. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get any ornaments or articles except mentioned in Paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment from the respondent-husband. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any relief under Section 27 of the Act, in this appeal.
5. So far permanent alimony is concerned, the findings are given in Paras 18 to 19 of the impugned judgment. As per this finding, on appreciation of the evidence, it was found by the Trial Court that the present appellant is working in a private school as Teacher and drawing Rs. 2000/- per month as salary from her employer and hence, she is not entitled to get any permanent alimony from respondent.
6. We have examined the pleadings and also scrutinized the evidence led by the rival parties. In view of the evidence, this should have been decided by the Trial Court that whether the present appellant can maintain, herself as per the status of the respondent-husband from the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month or not, but, this question has not been decided by the Trial Court.
7. Although in support of the findings the Trial Court has relied on the decisions (1994) Part 2 DMC 25, Bombay High Court (S. Rashmi Pradeep Kumar Jain v. Pradeep Kumar) and (1996) Part-1 DMC 191, Punjab & Haryana High Court (Ramlal v. Smt. Surendra Kaur), but in those cases, the question of sufficiency of the amount of permanent alimony was not decided. In our considered view, that before depriving the appellant from permanent alimony this question should also be decided whether the appellant is in a position to maintain herself as per the status of respondent-husband from the aforesaid amount of her salary, because in view of law relating to permanent alimony and maintenance the appellant has the right to live as per the status of her husband. In view of the aforesaid, we deem it fit to remand the case to the Trial Court by setting aside the finding recorded in Paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment with following directions :-
(A) The Trial Court shall decide afresh whether the salary of appellant which is Rs. 2,000/- per month is sufficient for her maintenance or not by giving the parties an opportunity to lead further evidence in this regard and pass a well reasoned order keeping in view the purport of Section 25 of the Act.
(B) If trial Court finds that salary of appellant is insufficient for her maintenance, as commensurate to her status it shall pass appropriate order that shall subserve the cause of justice.
8. In view of the aforesaid premises, the appeal is partly allowed and the case is remitted/remanded to the Trial Court to decide on the points as mentioned above, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to the costs.