Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 274 (ORI)

Minakshi Nath v. Sanjib Kumar Kabi

2010-04-13

B.P.RAY, L.MOHAPATRA

body2010
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — Appellant is the wife of the respondent. She has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated Ist October, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No.134 of 2003 allowing an applica¬tion filed by the respondent under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 2. Case of the respondent before the learned Judge, Family Court was that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 9.5.2002 as per Hindu customs and rights and the marriage was consummated in the village of the respondent. Few days after the marriage, the brother of the respondent suggested them to go to Puri in a pleasure trip and for that he promised to arrange Rs.10,000/-. When the respondent declined to go on a pleasure trip, the brother of the appellant lost his temper and abused the respondent and he was supported by the appellant. He was confined in the house of his father-in-law and was teased in many ways. After managing for a day in the house of his father-in-law, he came back to his house and thereafter the appellant not only became cruel to him but also towards all the members of his fami¬ly. She did not cook food and was talking with unknown boys for hours together over telephone even in late night. Her cruel behaviour went to such an extent that it became unbearable on the part of the respondent and his family members. Thereafter, some incidents as narrated in the petition happened and the appellant became vindictive towards the respondent and his family members and also threatened to commit suicide. His further case was that he was working in the Rourkela Steel Plant and used to return home from ‘B’ shift duty at about 10.30 P.M., but he was served with food by his mother and the appellant was found to be sleep¬ing. He also found the appellant sleeping with his brother. Several other incidents of misbehaviour of the appellant have been narrated in the petition and it is alleged that on 5.12.2002 the appellant insisted to go to her father’s house and sent information to her father to take her. On 7.12.2002 she left the marital home with all the gold ornaments and wearing apparels without informing any one. Several other incidents of misbehaviour of the appellant have been narrated in the petition and it is alleged that on 5.12.2002 the appellant insisted to go to her father’s house and sent information to her father to take her. On 7.12.2002 she left the marital home with all the gold ornaments and wearing apparels without informing any one. On the next day the brother of the appellant came with 15 unknown hooligans and threatened his family members. Several attempts were made to bring her back, but she did not return. Finding no other way, he sent pleader’s notice on 22.7.2003 requesting her to join him but she did not respond. There being no chance of reunion, the application was filed for dissolution of marriage. 3. The appellant filed a written statement admitting the marriage but denying all other allegations made in the petition. It was alleged by her that on 7.12.2002 while the respondent was absent in the house, her in-laws scolded her in vulgar language, snatched away all her gold ornaments and drove her away from the house. Finding no other way she came back to her father’s house and residing there since then. In the said proceeding, the appel¬lant also filed an application under Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act praying for return of the dowry article along with cash of Rs.70,000/- which had been paid as dowry. The said petition was also objected to by the respondent. Before the matter went for hearing several sitting were made for conciliation but it is failed and the respondent did not agree to stay with the appel¬lant. The appellant also claimed Rs.5,00,000/- towards permanent alimony apart from the claim made in the petition under Section 27 of the Act. 4. On pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court came to a conclusion that because of the behaviour meted out by the parties with each other, the marital tie has been snapped permanently and it will be of no use in dragging of an emotionally dead relationship. As a matter of fact, in course of hearing both the parties expressed before the trial Court that their relationship is emotionally dead and the same can be put to a legal end. As a matter of fact, in course of hearing both the parties expressed before the trial Court that their relationship is emotionally dead and the same can be put to a legal end. On these findings the learned Judge, Family Court allowed the application for dissolution of marriage and at the same time directed the respondent to pay lump sum amount of Rs.80,000/- towards permanent alimony and till such payment is made, the respondent was further directed to pay maintenance of Rs.750/- per month. So far as the petition under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, the learned Judge, Family Court also allowed the prayer. 5. From the order sheet we find that an attempt was made by this Court for reconciliation and the same having failed, the matter was heard and judgment was reserved. Unfortunately, due to retirement of one of the Judges before delivery of judgment, the matter was listed for rehearing and has been taken up by this Bench. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the decree granted by the trial Court for divorce and he did so rightly because of the fact that both the parties had no objec¬tion to end the marital tie through legal process which has been recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court in paragraph-15 of the judgment. Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to look into the evidence for the above purpose. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, prayed for enhancement of the lifetime alimony to Rs.5,00,000/- and also insisted for return of the dowry articles including cash of Rs.70,000/-. 7. From the order sheet we find that the appellant had claimed permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- and the respondent was directed to inform the Court as to whether he was willing to pay the said amount or not. The respondent offered a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and, therefore, the permanent alimony to be paid to the appellant could not be decided. Now the Court is called upon to decide as to what should be the permanent alimony that may be allowed in favour of the appellant. In this connection, the income of the respondent is required to be seen. Admittedly, the respondent is an employee of the Rourkela Steel Plant. The salary certificate of the respondent has been attached to the notes of submission given by the respondent. In this connection, the income of the respondent is required to be seen. Admittedly, the respondent is an employee of the Rourkela Steel Plant. The salary certificate of the respondent has been attached to the notes of submission given by the respondent. The said salary certificate relates to salary for the month of December, 2008 and as it appears, the respondent’s gross income for that month was Rs.16,999.90 and the take home pay was Rs.8,390/- after deduction of Rs.8609.90. It appears that the respondent had taken loan from the Provident Fund for which a major amount is being deducted from his salary. It also appears from the salary certificate that the respondent has got sufficient money in the Contributory Provident Fund. Considering the present price index, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) per month towards the maintenance is necessary and it may not be possible on the part of an individual to manage for the entire month with Rs.750/- as directed by the learned Judge, Family Court. If monthly maintenance is allowed at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month, the lump sum lifetime maintenance is to be assessed at Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand) which would give interest of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant towards maintenance every month. We are therefore of the view that the respondent should pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand) towards life time maintenance to the appellant. 8. So far as payment of Rs.70,000/- cash towards dowry is concerned, on perusal of the evidence adduced, it is found that the father of the respondent had received the amount. Therefore, the respondent is also required to return the said amount. 9. We accordingly dispose of this appeal with the follow¬ing directions: (i) The decree for divorce not being contested is confirmed. (ii) The respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand) towards life time maintenance of the appellant. (iii) The cash of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) received by father of the respondent shall be refunded to the appellant. (iv) So far as other dowry articles are concerned, there being dispute that part of it had been taken away by the appel¬lant, the matter should be decided in the execution case. The judgment and order of the learned Judge, Family Court impugned before us is modified to the above extent. (iv) So far as other dowry articles are concerned, there being dispute that part of it had been taken away by the appel¬lant, the matter should be decided in the execution case. The judgment and order of the learned Judge, Family Court impugned before us is modified to the above extent. B.P. RAY, J. I agree. Appeal disposed of.