Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1037 (ORI)

Pranati Rout v. Bijaya Rout

2016-11-03

K.R.MOHAPATRA, VINOD PRASAD

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 filed by the appellant-wife, namely, Pranati Rout assailing the judgment and order dated 20.9.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapada in C.P. No. 102 of 2013 filed by the husband-respondent, namely, Bijaya Rout under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapada although allowed the petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the husband dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce, but did not grant any permanent alimony to the wife-appellant. 3. Without being verbose, the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that marriage between the parties to this appeal was solemnized on 17.6.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is the contention of the husband (respondent herein) that only 15 days after the marriage, matrimonial discord arose between the husband and wife, when the wife insisted upon the husband to live separately in a rented house away from his matrimonial home, but the husband did not agree to the same. As a result, the wife left her in-laws house without informing either her husband or her parents-in-law. With much persuasion of the husband, although she came back to matrimonial home, as usual, continued her mis-behaviour with the husband and her in-laws and did not show any interest to perform the household chores. Lastly, on 24.10.2009, she left her matrimonial home without knowledge and consent of her husband or parents-in-law with all her ornaments and other valuables. All attempts by the husband and his family members were futile to bring her back. She also lodged an F.I.R. falsely implicating her husband and his family members, which has been registered as G.R. Case No. 340 of 2010 and is pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapada. She also filed a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapada. Thus, finding no other alternative to lead a peaceful marital life, the husband filed divorce proceeding on the ground of desertion and cruelty. 4. The wife (appellant herein) filed her objection denying the assertions made in the petition under Section 13 of the Act. The wife admitting the date of marriage contended that at the time of marriage, Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the husband towards dowry. 4. The wife (appellant herein) filed her objection denying the assertions made in the petition under Section 13 of the Act. The wife admitting the date of marriage contended that at the time of marriage, Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the husband towards dowry. He was also given Rs.40,000/- in cash to purchase a motor-cycle. Six months after the marriage, the husband and his family members demanded a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- for purchase of fridge. Due to poor financial condition of her father, the same could not be paid for which the wife was subjected to physical and mental torture. She was not provided with two morsels a day. When the torture became unbearable, the wife left her matrimonial home. Although her father had tried his best to settle the matter, but it could not materialize. Thus, she was left with only option to leave her matrimonial home on 18.4.2010. She also lodged an F.I.R. against her in-laws family on 19.4.2010, which has been registered as G.R. Case No. 340 of 2010. Looking at the pitiable condition of her parents, she filed Cr. P. No. 352 of 2013 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapada, which is pending adjudication. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the civil proceeding. 5. Taking into consideration the rival pleadings of the parties, learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapada framed following two issues for adjudication of the civil proceeding: 1. Whether the respondent Pranati Rout after marriage tortured the petitioner Bijaya Rout with cruelty and deserted for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 2. To what relief the petitioner is entitled to? 6. In support of their respective cases, the husband (respondent herein) examined two witnesses including himself as P.W. 1 and his mother as P.W. 2. He did not rely upon any documentary evidence. On the other hand, the wife (appellant herein) examined two witnesses including herself as O.P.W.1 and her father as O.P.W.2. She also relied upon the documentary evidence which is exhibited as Exts. A to E. 7. He did not rely upon any documentary evidence. On the other hand, the wife (appellant herein) examined two witnesses including herself as O.P.W.1 and her father as O.P.W.2. She also relied upon the documentary evidence which is exhibited as Exts. A to E. 7. Taking into consideration the assertions made and materials produced before the Court, learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapada has held as follows: “Therefore, in the present case under consideration, it cannot be stated that the respondent had tortured the petitioner with cruelty and deserted him without any cause”. However, he allowed the Civil Proceeding by dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce, but did not pass any order with regard to permanent alimony to the wife. 8. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the appellant although initially assailed the judgment on several grounds, but he, in course of hearing, confined his prayer only to the entitlement of permanent alimony to the wife submitting that there is no further scope of re-union between the parties and hence, no purpose would be served even if the impugned judgment granting divorce is set aside. He submitted that a just and reasonable permanent alimony to the wife will meet the ends of justice. As such, learned counsel for the parties advanced their arguments on the quantum of permanent alimony to the wife. 9. In course of hearing, the matter had come up before this Court on 26.10.2016 on which date on being questioned by this Court on the quantum of permanent alimony, the husband did not become desirous to pay to the wife and he (the husband) repeatedly uttered that he is penurious. However, he agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the wife. 10. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh towards full and final settlement of permanent alimony would meet the ends of justice. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent strenuously urged that the respondent-husband is a daily wage earner at Bengaluru and earning his livelihood with much difficulty. He is not in a position to pay the aforesaid amount. He further submitted that although learned Judge, Family Court has not assigned any reason in too many words, the tenor of the impugned judgment definitely suggests that the wife is not entitled to any permanent alimony. He is not in a position to pay the aforesaid amount. He further submitted that although learned Judge, Family Court has not assigned any reason in too many words, the tenor of the impugned judgment definitely suggests that the wife is not entitled to any permanent alimony. Thus, the same was impliedly refused by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapada while granting the decree of divorce. 11. We have given our anxious thoughts to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We also vetted through the materials available on record ourselves. On perusal of the records, it appears that neither party to this appeal could produce any document or acceptable oral evidence to prove the employment and income of the husband. Thus, we accept the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that the husband is a daily wage labourer at Bengaluru and notionally fixed his income to be Rs. 9000/-per month. The wife is at least entitled to 1/3rd of the income of the husband as laid down in plethora of case laws. The respondent-husband has also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-to the wife for her maintenance. Looking at the age of the wife to be 25 years at the time of filing of the civil proceeding, we compound the same for 15 years which comes to (Rs.3000.00 x 12 x15) Rs.5,40,000/- as per the broad guidelines in the case of Ruby @ Pritipadma Pradhan v. Debasis Pradhan, reported in 2014 (II) ILR CUT 709. Taking into consideration the dependency of the parents of the respondent (husband) on him as well as the contention of Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh (Rupees five lakh) would meet the ends of justice, we round up the permanent alimony at Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh). 12. In view of the above discussion, we modify the impugned judgment and order by directing that the appellant-wife shall be paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh) towards permanent alimony within a period of four months in two equal installments. On failure of the respondent-husband to pay the permanent alimony in time, as directed, the appellant-wife will be free to recover the same with 10% interest per annum taking recourse to law. On failure of the respondent-husband to pay the permanent alimony in time, as directed, the appellant-wife will be free to recover the same with 10% interest per annum taking recourse to law. Disposal of this appeal brings an end to all the disputes and litigations between the parties arising out of their marriage. 13. This appeal is allowed in part with aforesaid modification, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Vinod Prasad, J. I agree.