Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 711 (ORI)

ARNAPURNA SAHOO v. PREMANANDA SAHOO

2002-10-31

B.PANIGRAHI, P.K.MISRA

body2002
JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal is an against the decree of divorce granted by the learned Judge, Family Court in Civil Proceeding No. 523 of 1998 u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The case of the Respondent before the Family Court is as follows: The marriage between both the spouses was solemnised on 7.7.1995 according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage they led a peaceful conjugal life for some time and a male child was born to them in the year 1996. It is stated by the Respondent husband that after the birth of the male child, there was always misunderstanding, bickering, dissension and unhappiness as the Appellant insisted him to live separately from her. It was alleged by the Appellant that the Respondent had an extra-marital relationship with widowed sister-in-law for which she persuaded the Respondent to live with her. Since the Respondent did not agree, rather preferred to stay with his widowed sister-in-law, she filed a report at the local Police Station. Under the direction of the local Police a village panchayat was convened in which it was agreed that the Respondent shall pay Rs. 300/- per month for maintenance. Ever her after, their there relationship did not continue cordially, as a reason whereof, the Respondent filed an application for granting a decree of divorce. 3. Both the parties led their evidence before the learned Judge, Family Court. On the basis of such evidence the learned Judge, Family Court was of the view that there was no cordial relationship between both the spouses and there existed unhappiness, bitterness and quarrel between them. Thus it was impossible for the Respondent to continue to live with the Appellant-wife. Accordingly, he directed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- payable by the Respondent towards maintenance of the Appellant as well as their male child. Being aggrieved by such order, the Appellant-wife has filed this appeal. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that the finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and illegal. Since there was no mental torture alleged to have been meted out to the Respondent, rather the Respondent had deserted the Appellant without any lawful excuse for which for some time she took shelter in her parents' house and thereafter she was forced to come and stay in the matrimonial house. Since there was no mental torture alleged to have been meted out to the Respondent, rather the Respondent had deserted the Appellant without any lawful excuse for which for some time she took shelter in her parents' house and thereafter she was forced to come and stay in the matrimonial house. The Respondent did not make any provision for food and clothing of the Appellant and the male child. It is further submitted that the Appellant is prepared to stay with the Respondent. Before disposal of the case, we made several attempts for reconciliation. The Appellant-wife although offered her willingness to join with the Respondent, but the husband strongly denied to live with the Appellant-wife. Therefore, it is not possible to direct them to live together inasmuch as the Respondent-husband did not agree to live with the Appellant. 5. Since there has been allegation of mental cruelty and it is not possible for the husband to continue to live with the Appellant-wife, thus it is necessary to decide, in case the decree of divorce is upheld, what should be the quantum of maintenance payable to the Appellant? From the evidence on record it has been brought out that the Respondent-husband is earning about Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- per month being engaged as a mason under a contractor. The learned Judge, Family Court has determined the permanent alimony of Rs. 25,000/- to both, Rs. 10,000/- for the child and Rs. 15.000/- for the Appellant which in our opinion is ludicrously low, as from that amount they cannot earn their livelihood. The son is aged about 5 years. The Appellant has to meet his educational expenses besides maintenance. It is ascertained that the Respondent has a joint family homestead in the village, where the Appellant and also the Respondent's widowed sister-in-law are living. In order to meet the maintenance of the Appellant and the male child so also the educational expenses of her son, the Respondent should make some minimum provision. In our view Rs. 1,50,000/- (One lakh fifty thousand) should be the minimum requirement for their maintenance and also the educational expenses of the son. Therefore, we direct the Respondent to pay Rs. 1,50,000/ - (One lakh fifty thousand) towards permanent alimony and also the educational expenses of their son. It is submitted that Rs. 25,000/?has already been deposited by the Respondent. 1,50,000/- (One lakh fifty thousand) should be the minimum requirement for their maintenance and also the educational expenses of the son. Therefore, we direct the Respondent to pay Rs. 1,50,000/ - (One lakh fifty thousand) towards permanent alimony and also the educational expenses of their son. It is submitted that Rs. 25,000/?has already been deposited by the Respondent. In that event he shall either deposit or pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- (One lakh twenty-five thousand) to the Appellant. Till such amount is paid, the homestead in which the Appellant is residing shall be kept as a charge. 6. It is also made clear that she can avail the benefits of any Government scheme, if there is any such proposal. The Appellant can withdraw the amount which is deposited before the learned Judge, Family Court. 7. With the above modification, the decree of divorce granted by the learned Judge, Family Court is hereby affirmed.