Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 207 (UTT)

Uma Dabar W/o Ashok Kumar v. Ashok Kumar Dabar

2011-03-24

PRAFULLA C.PANT, V.K.BIST

body2011
Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant,J. 1. Both these appeals, preferred under section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, are directed against judgment and order dated 09.04.2010, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in suit no. 146 of 2003, whereby said court has decreed the suit for divorce filed by the husband (present respondent) and directed him to pay to pay lump-sum alimony of rupees four lakhs to his wife (apart from ` 1,15,300/-in lieu of the STRIDHAN). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Brief facts ,of the case, are that appellant Uma Dabar got married to respondent Ashok Kumar Dabar on 08.12.1993, following Hindu rites. No issue was born out of the wed-lock. After sometime of their marriage, matrimonial relations between the two started souring, and they started living separately from each other since 12.08.1996. Ashok Kumar Dabar (present respondent) filed a petition for divorce under section 13 read with section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of impotency and cruelty. The appellant who was respondent in the petition, contested the petition and filed her written statement. She admitted that she was married to the present respondent, and there was no issue born out of the wed-lock. However, the allegations of impotency and that of cruelty were denied by the wife. A counter claim was made in the written statement seeking return of STRIDHAN, and permanent alimony was also sought in the counter claim. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed following issues:- (i) Whether the suit is maintainable? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce on the grounds mentioned in the petition? (iii) Whether the respondent suffers from impotency? (iv) Whether the respondent is entitled to the counter claim made by her? (v) To what relief, if any, petitioner is entitled? 4. The trial court recorded the evidence of the parties. During the trial, the petitioner did not press the ground of impotency for the relief sought by him. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that the petitioner has successfully made out a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. However, the trial court found that the wife (present appellant) was entitled not only to the return of STRIDHAN but also permanent alimony amounting rupees four lacs. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that the petitioner has successfully made out a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. However, the trial court found that the wife (present appellant) was entitled not only to the return of STRIDHAN but also permanent alimony amounting rupees four lacs. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 9.04.2010, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in suit no. 146 of 2003, these two appeals are filed by the wife. In appeal no. 21 of 2010, wife has sought enhancement of permanent alimony awarded by the trial court. In appeal no. 22 of 2010, she has challenged the decree of divorce. 5. During the argument in this appeal learned counsel for the appellant stated that he does not want to press the appeal no. 22 of 2010. In this connection, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that since the parties are living separately for more than 15 years, and marriage has irretrievably broken down, as such the appellant does not want to press the appeal challenging the decree of divorce, granted by the trial court on ground of cruelty. 6. However, in FA No. 21 of 2010, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent Ashok Kumar Dabar is a cashier with the State Bank of India. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that considering the economic status of the parties amount of rupees four lacs as permanent lump-sum alimony is insufficient for maintenance of the appellant. We have gone through the evidence on record relating to economic status of the parties, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the lump-sum amount of permanent alimony of ` 6,50,000/-is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Accordingly, FA No. 21 of 2010 is allowed, and amount of permanent alimony is enhanced from ` 4,00,000/-to ` 6,50,000/-. The entire amount of alimony shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant or deposited in her favour before the trial court within a period of three months from today. The FA No. 22 of 2010 is dismissed as not pressed, and decree of divorce stands affirmed. Costs easy. (Stay application no. 3260 of 2010 stands disposed of).