Krishan Avtar Kaushik Vs. Smt. Raj Bala - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- haryana urban(control of rent and eviction)act,1973[har.act no.11/1973] -- section 4(2)(b): [m.m. kumar, hemant gupta, ajay & kumar mittal, jj] determination of fair rent held, the fair rent of building under the section is to be determined on the basis of rent agreed between landlord and tenant preceding the date of application. in the absence of rent agreed between parties the basic rent is required to be determined on the basis of rent prevailing in locality for a similar building or rented land on the date of application. if on the date of filing of the application under section 4 of the act for determination of fair rent, the agreed rent was still in vogue thus, it has to be regarded as the basic rent and the same would be constituted as the basis for determining fair rent. thus, where rs.500/- was paid as rent by tenant to the landlord, the same would be regarded as agreed rate of rent and the agreed rate of rent has to be regarded as basic rent within the meaning of section 4(2)(b) of the act in the process of fixing fair rent irrespective of the fact whether the lease period stipulated in a lease deed has expired.orderr.l. anand, j.1. this f.a.o. has been directed against the order dated 19.9.2000, passed by the court of additional district judge, rohtak, who, awarded a sum of rs. 2500/- per month as permanent alimony to smt. raj bala ex-wife of the appellant with effect from 16.4.1998 to 25.8.1999, for the reasons broadly given in para no. 15 of the impugned judgment which is reproduced as under :-' 15. respondent contracted the second marriage. he as (rw2) himself stated it. he stated that in the salary he gets he has to maintain his wife, old aged parents and sister's son as his mother expired immediately after giving birth and father contracted the second marriage. no doubt, the respondent owes social and moral responsibility to take care of his old aged parents etc. but he is also legally and morally bound to support his divorcee wife, particularly, when she is without any means of livelihood. she cannot be made to live on the mercy of others and ains (alms ?). keeping in view the status of the parties, income of the respondent escalating prices of every commodity. i feel that rs. 2500/- a month are required by the petitioner for her living and the respondent can conveniently pay this much amount to her as permanent alimony. this issue is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner. 2. the learned counsel for the petitioner cites 1983 plr 672, sarla devi v. om parkash madan and submits that since respondent smt. raj bala is a highly qualified lady, a reasonable inference can always be drawn that she can maintain herself. in the present case, it is proved on the record that appellant is earning rs. 8,000/- per month. he has remarried. he is supposed to maintain his old parents, second wife and his sister's son. the maintaining of these people by the appellant does not mean that he can ignore his ex-wife smt. raj bala. respondent is an educated lady. even assuming for the sake of argument that she is in a position to earn something for herself, even then i do not think that the amount of permanent alimony awarded by the trial court, is in any way excessive, illogical, harsh or irrational. therefore, i do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.3. appeal dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

R.L. Anand, J.

1. This F.A.O. has been directed against the order dated 19.9.2000, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Rohtak, who, awarded a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month as permanent alimony to Smt. Raj Bala ex-wife of the appellant with effect from 16.4.1998 to 25.8.1999, for the reasons broadly given in para No. 15 of the impugned judgment which is reproduced as under :-

' 15. Respondent contracted the Second marriage. He as (RW2) himself stated it. He stated that in the salary he gets he has to maintain his wife, old aged parents and sister's son as his mother expired immediately after giving birth and father contracted the second marriage. No doubt, the respondent owes social and moral responsibility to take care of his old aged parents etc. But he is also legally and morally bound to support his divorcee wife, particularly, when she is without any means of livelihood. She cannot be made to live on the mercy of others and ains (alms ?). Keeping in view the status of the parties, income of the respondent escalating prices of every commodity. I feel that Rs. 2500/- a month are required by the petitioner for her living and the respondent can conveniently pay this much amount to her as permanent alimony. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner cites 1983 PLR 672, Sarla Devi v. Om Parkash Madan and submits that since respondent Smt. Raj Bala is a highly qualified lady, a reasonable inference can always be drawn that she can maintain herself. In the present case, it is proved on the record that appellant is earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. He has remarried. He is supposed to maintain his old parents, second wife and his sister's son. The maintaining of these people by the appellant does not mean that he can ignore his ex-wife Smt. Raj Bala. Respondent is an educated lady. Even assuming for the sake of argument that she is in a position to earn something for herself, even then I do not think that the amount of permanent alimony awarded by the trial Court, is in any way excessive, illogical, harsh or irrational. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

3. Appeal dismissed.