Actor Vijay Sai hangs self, mom blames wife. Death video by victim reveals wife sought 3 crores from him

TNN |

Updated: Dec 12, 2017, 05:51 IST

96A708A7-0635-4309-AEFE-D1A14EC31609

Telugu comedian Vijay Sai found dead
HYDERABAD: Tollywood comedian Vijay Sai on Monday committed suicide by hanging from a ceiling fan at his Yousufguda residence.

The actor left a video clip holding his wife and two others responsible for his death, saying they had been demanding 3 crore from him.

Family members said the actor slipped into depression due to marital disputes and lack of acting opportunities. Vijay Sai and his wife Vanitha had been living separately for the last two years and their divorce matter is pending before a local court.

Vijay, at around 9.30 am, went inside his bedroom, bolted the door and hanged himself. When his mother and a friend knocked on the door and made phone calls a little later, the actor didn’t respond.

Wife defends self, hints at ill health, property issues

When the door had been prised open, he was found hanging.

Vijay had acted in several movies including the famed hit Bommarillu and Ammayilu Abbayilu.

He posted a message to his friends on a WhatsApp group saying, ‘Vijay no more’. His friends tried to call him on his mobile, but there was no response.

Vijay’s mother held his wife Vanitha responsible for the actor’s suicide alleging that she was harassing and maligning his character. She took away all valuables and moved to her parents house along with her daughter, the actor’s mother said.

Three days ago, Vijay found his car missing from the parking lot of his apartment complex and later came to know that his estranged wife had driven it away. He lodged a complaint with the Jubilee Hills police in this regard.

However, Vanitha, talking to reporters, denied allegations that she was responsible for Vijay’s death. “We had split almost two years ago as he was having an affair with another woman. If I am responsible, he could have ended his life two days ago. I could only see two reasons behind the suicide. His father’s unwillingness to register the latter’s property in Ongole in the name of my daughter or Vijay’s health issues,” Vanitha said. She denied demanding ₹3 crore from her husband.

Movie Artistes’ Association (MAA) president Shivaji Raja condoled Vijay’s death and appealed to actors not to commit suicide and suggested that if they were in distress they could approach MAA for help.

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/hyderabad/actor-vijay-sai-hangs-self-mom-blames-wife/amp_articleshow/62030430.cms?__twitter_impression=true

Advertisements

Woman murders husband, then pours acid on lover’s face for ‘replacement’

Woman murders husband, then pours acid on lover’s face for ‘replacement’

Daijiworld Media Network


Aadhaar card helps police solve crime

Nagarkurnool (Telangana), Dec 11:

In a shocking incident inspired by Telugu blockbuster ‘Yevadu’ where the hero pulls off as another person after plastic surgery, a married woman and her beau tried to stage the movie’s plot in real life but were busted, thanks to Aadhaar card.

Swathi Reddy from Nagarkurnool district of Telangana allegedly killed her husband Sudhakar Reddy with the help of her boyfriend Rajesh. Sudhakar’s body was burnt in a forest.

Later, she allegedly disfigured her boyfriend’s face by pouring acid and informed Sudhakar’s family that their son had met with an accident. However, news agency ANI reported that Rajesh voluntarily poured the acid on himself.

Sudhakar (deceased) and Swathi

Rajesh, who was now impersonating as Sudhakar, was rushed to a hospital in Hyderabad and a plastic surgery was conducted. However the family got suspicious when they noticed a sudden change in their ‘son’s’ mannerisms and behaviour and informed the police.

The police tried to ascertain Sudhakar’s identity by matching fingerprints with his Aadhaar and the duo was caught.

The investigation revealed that Sudhakar was killed on November 26. Swathi and Rajesh thought that they could live happily after Rajesh gets a plastic surgery to look like Sudhakar.

“We visited the hospital and took fingerprints of the person who is undergoing treatment later checked with Aadhaar biometric and found the fingerprints are not matching,” said Jogu Chennaiah, additional superintendent of police (SP), Nagarkurnool district.

While Swathi has been arrested, the police are waiting for Rajesh to get discharged from hospital. “One more accused Rajesh is undergoing treatment in the hospital; he will be arrested soon after discharge from the hospital,” the additional SP said.

Stop fake lollipops like making adultery gender neutral. Make ALL key laws gender neutral

Why make ONLY adultry gender neutral ? Why NOT make All laws governing man – Woman relationships gender neutral ? #DV , #125crpc, #IPC498a , #IPC375 #IPC376

ADULTERY is hardly worn by men. Making adultry general neutral is not going to help MEN. It’s a fake lollipop given to us

After singing a full paragraph about independent woman, the honorable orders 4000 maintenance pm from a poor retired Army man !!!

In this fantastic judgement the honourable goes on to state how independent the modern woman is. How she has removed all the shackles and fetters. In spite of all the praise and singing, finally the court orders the evil MAN pay maintenance… Wait a minute… WHY is the free woman not maintaining herself?? WHY is the free woman expecting free money from a stupid man?? We are left with no answers to these questions but to let the reader continue reading this classic case !!!

Parameters for determining quantum of maintenance to paid under S125 of crpc Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High Court, it is noticed that the High Court has shown immense sympathy to the husband by reducing the amount after his retirement. It has come on record that the husband was getting a monthly salary of Rs.17,654/-. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/-. In today’s world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.564-565 OF 2015

[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6380-6381 of 2014]

SHAMIMA FAROOQUI V SHAHID KHAN

Dated;APRIL 06, 2015.

When centuries old obstructions are removed, age old shackles are either burnt or lost their force, the chains get rusted, and the human endowments and virtues are not indifferently treated and emphasis is laid on “free identity” and not on “annexed identity”, and the women of today can gracefully and boldly assert their legal rights and refuse to be tied down to the obscurant conservatism, and further determined to ostracize the “principle of commodity”, and the “barter system” to devoutly engage themselves in learning, criticizing and professing certain principles with committed sensibility and participating in all pertinent and concerned issues, there is no warrant or justification or need to pave the innovative multi-avenues which the law does not countenance or give its stamp of approval. Chivalry, a perverse sense of human egotism, and clutching of feudal megalomaniac ideas or for that matter, any kind of condescending attitude have no room. They are bound to be sent to the ancient woods, and in the new horizon people should proclaim their own ideas and authority. They should be able to say that they are the persons of modern age and they have the ideas of today’s “Bharat”. Any other idea floated or any song sung in the invocation of male chauvinism is the proposition of an alien, a total stranger – an outsider. That is the truth in essentiality.

  1. The facts which are requisite to stated for adjudication of these appeals are that the appellant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) contending, inter alia, that she married Shahid Khan, the respondent herein, on 26.4.1992 and during her stay at the matrimonial home she was prohibited 3 from talking to others, and the husband not only demanded a car from the family but also started harassing her. A time came when he sent her to the parental home where she was compelled to stay for almost three months. The indifferent husband did not come to take her back to the matrimonial home, but she returned with the fond and firm hope that the bond of wedlock would be sustained and cemented with love and peace but as the misfortune would have it, the demand for the vehicle continued and the harassment was used as a weapon for fulfilment of the demand. In due course she came to learn that the husband had illicit relationship with another woman and he wanted to marry her. Usual to sense of human curiosity and wife’s right when she asked him she was assaulted. The situation gradually worsened and it became unbearable for her to stay at the matrimonial home. At that juncture, she sought help of her parents who came and took her to the parental home at Lucknow where she availed treatment. Being deserted and ill-treated and, in a way, suffering from fear psychosis she took shelter in the house of her parents and when all her hopes got shattered for reunion, she filed an application for grant of maintenance at the rate of 4 Rs.4000/- per month on the foundation that husband was working on the post of Nayak in the Army and getting a salary of Rs.10,000/- approximately apart from other perks.
  2. The application for grant of maintenance was resisted with immense vigour by the husband disputing all the averments pertaining to demand of dowry and harassment and further alleging that he had already given divorce to her on 18.6.1997 and has also paid the Mehar to her.

  3. A reply was filed to the same by wife asserting that she had neither the knowledge of divorce nor had she received an amount of Mehar.

  4. During the proceeding before the learned Family Judge the wife-appellant examined herself and another, and the respondent-husband himself. examined four witnesses, including The learned Family Judge, Family Court, Lucknow while dealing with the application forming the subject matter Criminal Case No. 1120 of 1998 did not accept the primary objection as regards the maintainability under Section 125 CrPC as the applicant was a Muslim woman and came to hold even after the divorce the application of the wife under Section 125 CrPC was maintainable in the family court. Thereafter, 5 the learned Family Judge appreciating the evidence brought on record came to opine that the marriage between the parties had taken place on 26.4.1992; that the husband had given divorce on 18.6.1997; that she was ill treated at her matrimonial home; and that she had come back to her parental house and staying there; that the husband had not made any provision for grant of maintenance; that the wife did not have any source of income to support her, and the plea advanced by the husband that she had means to sustain her had not been proved; that as the husband was getting at the time of disposal of the application as per the salary certificate Rs.17654/- and accordingly directed that a sum of Rs.2500/- should be paid as monthly maintenance allowance from the date of submission of application till the date of judgment and thereafter Rs.4000/- per month from the date of judgment till the date of remarriage.

  5. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Family Judge came to be assailed before the High Court in Criminal Revision wherein, the High Court after adumbrating the facts referred to the decisions in Anita Rani v. Rakeshpal Singh1, 1 1991 (2) Crimes 725 (All) 6 Dharmendra Kumar Gupta v. Chander Prabha Devi2, Rakesh Kumar Dikshitnv.nJayanti Devi3, Ashutosh Tripathi v. State of U.P.4, Paras Nath Kurmi v. The Session Judge5 and Sartaj v. State of U.P. and others6 and came to hold that though the learned principal Judge, Family Court had not ascribed any reason for grant of maintenance from the date of application, yet when the case for maintenance was filed in the year 1998 decided on 17.2.2012 and there was no order for interim maintenance, the grant of Rs.2500/- as monthly maintenance from the date of application was neither illegal nor excessive. The High Court took note of the fact that the husband had retired on 1.4.2012 and consequently reduced the maintenance allowance to Rs.2000/-from 1.4.2012 till remarriage of the appellant herein. Being of this view the learned Single Judge modified the order passed by the Family Court. Hence, the present appeal by special leave, at the instance of the wife. 2n1990 Cr.L.J. 1884 1999 (2) JIC, 323 (ACC) 4 1999 (2) 763, Allahabad J.I.C 5 1999 (2) JIC 522 All 6 2000 (2) JIC 967 All 37

  6. We have heard Dr. J.N. Dubey, learned senior counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice, none has appeared for the respondent.

  7. It is submitted by Dr. Dubey, learned senior counsel that Section 125 CrPC is applicable to the Muslim women and the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue. It is urged by him that the High Court has fallen into error by opining that the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month is excessive and hence, it should be reduced to Rs.2000/- per month from the date of retirement of the husband i.e. 1.4.2012 till her re-marriage. It is also contended that the High Court failed to appreciate the plight of the appellant and reduced the amount and hence, the impugned order is not supportable in law.

  8. First of all, we intend to deal with the applicability of Section 125 CrPC to a Muslim woman who has been divorced. In Shamim Bano v. Asraf Khan7, this Court after referring to the Constitution Bench decisions in Danial Latifi v. Union of India8 and Khatoon Nisa v. State of U.P.9 had opined as follows:-

7

8

9

(2014) 12 SCC 636

(2001) 7 SCC 740

(2014) 12 SCC 646

8

“13. The aforesaid principle clearly lays down that

even after an application has been filed under the

provisions of the Act, the Magistrate under the Act

has the power to grant maintenance in favour of a

divorced Muslim woman and the parameters and

the considerations are the same as stipulated in

Section 125 of the Code. We may note that while

taking note of the factual score to the effect that the

plea of divorce was not accepted by the Magistrate

which was upheld by the High Court, the

Constitution Bench opined that as the Magistrate

could exercise power under Section 125 of the Code

for grant of maintenance in favour of a divorced

Muslim woman under the Act, the order did not

warrant any interference. Thus, the emphasis was

laid on the retention of the power by the Magistrate

under Section 125 of the Code and the effect of

ultimate consequence.

  1. Slightly recently, in Shabana Bano v. Imran

Khan10, a two-Judge Bench, placing reliance on

Danial Latifi (supra), has ruled that:-

“21. The appellant’s petition under Section

125 CrPC would be maintainable before

the Family Court as long as the appellant

does not remarry. The amount of

maintenance to be awarded under Section

125 CrPC cannot be restricted for the

iddat period only.”

Though the aforesaid decision was rendered

interpreting Section 7 of the Family Courts Act,

1984, yet the principle stated therein would be

applicable, for the same is in consonance with the

principle stated by the Constitution Bench in

Khatoon Nisa (supra).”

10

(2010) 1 SCC 666

9

In view of the aforesaid dictum, there can be no shadow

of doubt that Section 125 CrPC has been rightly held to be

applicable by the learned Family Judge.

11.

On a perusal of the order passed by the Family Court, it

is manifest that it has taken note of the fact that the salary of

the husband was Rs.17,654/- in May, 2009.

Rs.2,500/- as monthly

maintenance from

It had fixed

the date of

submission of application till the date of order i.e. 17.2.2012

and from the date of order,

at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per

month till the date of remarriage. The High Court has opined

that while granting maintenance from the date of application,

judicial discretion has to be appropriately exercised, for the

High Court has noted that the grant of maintenance at the

rate of Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of application till

date of order, did not call for modification.

12.

The aforesaid finding of the High Court, affirming the

view of the learned Family Judge is absolutely correct. But

what is disturbing is that though the application for grant of

maintenance was filed in the year 1998, it was not decided till

17.2.2012. It is also shocking to note that there was no order

for grant of interim maintenance.

It needs no special

10

emphasis to state that when an application for grant of

maintenance is filed by the wife the delay in disposal of the

application, to say the least, is an unacceptable situation. It

is, in fact, a distressing phenomenon.

An application for

grant of maintenance has to be disposed of at the earliest.

The family courts, which have been established to deal with

the matrimonial disputes, which include application under

Section 125 CrPC, have become absolutely apathetic to the

same.

The concern and anguish that was expressed by this

Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Ors. 11, is to

the following effect:-

“13. The Family Courts have been established for

adopting and facilitating the conciliation procedure

and to deal with family disputes in a speedy and

expeditious manner. A three-Judge Bench in K.A.

Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida12, while highlighting

on the purpose of bringing in the Family Courts Act

by the legislature, opined thus:-

“The Family Courts Act was enacted to

provide for the establishment of Family

Courts with a view to promote conciliation

in, and secure speedy settlement of,

disputes relating to marriage and family

affairs

and

for

matters

connected

therewith.”

  1. The purpose of highlighting this aspect is that

in the case at hand the proceeding before the

11

12

AIR 2014 SC 2875

(2003) 4 SCC 166

11

Family Court was conducted without being alive to

the objects and reasons of the Act and the spirit of

the provisions Under Section 125 of the Code. It is

unfortunate that the case continued for nine years

before the Family Court. It has come to the notice

of the Court that on certain occasions the Family

Courts have been granting adjournments in a

routine manner as a consequence of which both the

parties suffer or, on certain occasions, the wife

becomes the worst victim. When such a situation

occurs, the purpose of the law gets totally

atrophied. The Family Judge is expected to be

sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing with

extremely delicate and sensitive issues pertaining

to the marriage and issues ancillary thereto. When

we say this, we do not mean that the Family Courts

should show undue haste or impatience, but there

is a distinction between impatience and to be wisely

anxious and conscious about dealing with a

situation. A Family Court Judge should remember

that the procrastination is the greatest assassin of

the lis before it. It not only gives rise to more family

problems but also gradually builds unthinkable

and Everestine bitterness. It leads to the cold

refrigeration of the hidden feelings, if still left. The

delineation of the lis by the Family Judge must

reveal the awareness and balance. Dilatory tactics

by any of the parties has to be sternly dealt with,

for the Family Court Judge has to be alive to the

fact that the lis before him pertains to emotional

fragmentation and delay can feed it to grow. We

hope and trust that the Family Court Judges shall

remain alert to this and decide the matters as

expeditiously as possible keeping in view the

objects and reasons of the Act and the scheme of

various provisions pertaining to grant of

maintenance, divorce, custody of child, property

disputes, etc.”

[emphasis supplied]

13.

When

the

aforesaid

anguish

was

expressed,

the

predicament was not expected to be removed with any kind of

12

magic. However, the fact remains, these litigations can really

corrode the human relationship not only today but will also

have the impact for years to come and has the potentiality to

take a toll on the society.

It occurs either due to the

uncontrolled design of the parties or the lethargy and apathy

shown by the Judges who man the Family Courts.

As far as

the first aspect is concerned, it is the duty of the Courts to

curtail them.

There need not be hurry but procrastination

should not be manifest, reflecting the attitude of the Court.

As regards the second facet, it is the duty of the Court to have

the complete control over the proceeding and not permit the

lis to swim the unpredictable grand river of time without

knowing when shall it land on the shores or take shelter in a

corner tree that stands “still” on some unknown bank of the

river. It cannot allow it to sing the song of the brook. “Men

may come and men may go, but I go on for ever.” This would

be the greatest tragedy that can happen to the adjudicating

system which is required to deal with most sensitive matters

between the man and wife or other family members relating to

matrimonial and domestic affairs.

There has to be a

pro-active approach in this regard and the said approach

13

should be instilled in the Family Court Judges by the Judicial

Academies functioning under the High Courts.

For the

present, we say no more.

14.

Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High Court,

it is noticed that the High Court has shown immense

sympathy to the husband by reducing the amount after his

retirement.

It has come on record that the husband was

getting a monthly salary of Rs.17,654/-.

15.

The High Court, without indicating any reason, has

reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/-.

In today’s world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a

woman of her status would be in a position to manage within

Rs.2,000/- per month.

It can never be forgotten that the

inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC

is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as

mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is

compelled to leave her matrimonial home.

The statute

commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so

that she can sustain herself.

The principle of sustenance

gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it

clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow

14

to mean a mere survival.

A woman, who is constrained to

leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she

has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging

for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the

similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her

husband.

And that is where the status and strata of the

husband comes into play and that is where the legal

obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long

as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the

parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that

she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her

matrimonial home.

She cannot be compelled to become a

destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that

an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person

despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to

maintain the wife.

Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the

husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does

not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are

only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in

law.

If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a

position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to

15

support his wife, for wife’s right to receive maintenance under

Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.

While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in

Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors.13

has held as follows:-

“The court has to consider the status of the parties,

their respective needs, the capacity of the husband

to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for

his own maintenance and of those he is obliged

under the law and statutory but involuntary

payments

or

deductions.

The

amount

of

maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as

she can live in reasonable comfort considering her

status and the mode of life she was used to when

she lived with her husband and also that she does

not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case.

At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be

excessive or extortionate.”

16.

Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a

measure of social justice by this Court.

In Chaturbhuj v.

Sita Bai14, it has been ruled that:-

“Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice

and is specially enacted to protect women and

children and as noted by this Court in Captain

Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal15 falls

within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3)

reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is

to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a

speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and

13

(1997) 7 SCC 7

(2008) 2 SCC 316

15

(1978) 4 SCC 70

14

16

shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to

fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to

maintain his wife, children and parents when they

are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid

position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai

Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat16.”

This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the

husband to maintain his wife.

He cannot be permitted to

plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial

constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

17.

In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from

the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander

Prakash

Bodhraj

v.

Shila

Rani

Chander

Prakash17

wherein it has been opined thus:-

“An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to

be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be

able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and

he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a

position to earn enough to be able to maintain them

according to the family standard. It is for such

able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent

grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons

beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his

legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child.

When the husband does not disclose to the Court

the exact amount of his income, the presumption

will be easily permissible against him.”

16

17

(2005) 3 SCC 636

AIR 1968 Delhi 174

17

18.

From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that

the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when

the question of maintenance of wife and children arises.

When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation

is quite different.

She is deprived of many a comfort.

Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she

has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her

fearless courage has brought her the misfortune.

At this

stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the

husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only

soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to

destiny.

Therefore,

the

lawful

imposition

for

grant

of

maintenance allowance.

19.

In the instant case, as is seen, the High Court has

reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to

Rs.2,000/-.

As is manifest, the High Court has become

oblivious of the fact that she has to stay on her own. Needless

to say, the order of the learned Family Judge is not manifestly

perverse. There is nothing perceptible which would show that

order is a sanctuary of errors.

In fact, when the order is

based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, no

18

revisional court should have interfered with the reason on the

base that it would have arrived at a different or another

conclusion.

When substantial justice has been done, there

was no reason to interfere. There may be a shelter over her

head in the parental house, but other real expenses cannot be

ignored. Solely because the husband had retired, there was

no justification to reduce the maintenance by 50%. It is not a

huge fortune that was showered on the wife that it deserved

reduction. It only reflects the non-application of mind and,

therefore, we are unable to sustain the said order.

20.

Having stated the principle, we would have proceeded to

record our consequential conclusion. But, a significant one,

we cannot be oblivious of the asseverations made by the

appellant.

taken

It has been asserted that the respondent had

voluntary

retirement

after

the

judgment

dated

17.2.2012 with the purpose of escaping the liability to pay the

maintenance amount as directed to the petitioner; that the

last drawn salary of respondent taken into account by the

learned Family Judge was Rs.17,564/- as per salary slip of

May, 2009 and after deduction of AFPP Fund and AGI, the

salary of the respondent was Rs.12,564/- and hence, even on

19

the basis of the last basic pay (i.e. Rs.9,830/-) of the

respondent the total pension would come to Rs.14,611/- and

if 40% of commutation is taken into account then the pension

of the respondent amounts to Rs.11,535/-; and that the

respondent, in addition to his pension, hand received

encashment of commutation to the extent of 40% i.e.

Rs.3,84,500/- and other retiral dues i.e. AFPP, AFGI, Gratuity

and leave encashment to the tune of Rs.16,01,455/-.

21.

The aforesaid aspects have gone uncontroverted as the

respondent-husband has not appeared and contested the

matter. Therefore, we are disposed to accept the assertions.

This exposition of facts further impels us to set aside the

order of the High Court.

22.

Consequently, the appeals are allowed, the orders

passed by the High Court are set aside and that of the Family

Court is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………….J.

[DIPAK MISRA]

………………………………….J.

[PRAFULLA C. PANT]

NEW DELHI

APRIL 06, 2015.