Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 485 (KAR)

Divya Ramesh v. N. S. Kiran Sheshadri K. Nittur

2017-02-14

K.S.MUDAGAL, S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2017
JUDGMENT : This is the wife's appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2012 passed by the IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C.No.729/09. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court has dismissed the petition of the appellant/petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) and partly allowed the application of the petitioner for alimony awarding Rs.10.00 lakhs as lumpsum maintenance including educational expenses to her child Tara K. Nittur. 2. The appellant filed M.C. 729/09 against the respondent for decree of dissolution of their marriage on the ground of cruelty and she claimed permanent alimony of Rs.50.00 lakhs and a two Bedroom residential accommodation in Basavanagudi, Bangalore for herself and her daughter Tara K. Nittur. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereafter with their ranks before the trial Court. 4. Some of the undisputed facts of this case are as follows: That the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 14.11.2003 at Sundar Mahal Marriage Hall in Girinagar, Bangalore. The parties are governed by Hindu Law. Out of the said wedlock, a girl by name Tara is born on 20.12.2007. Prior to the marriage, the petitioner was working in Life Insurance Corporation of India as a Higher Grade Assistant and she was a National Level Badminton Player. She was conferred with Ekalaya Sports Award by the Government of Karnataka. At the time of the marriage, the respondent was working at New Jersey, USA as software engineer and continued to work so. After the marriage, the petitioner gave up her employment and joined the respondent at New Jersey on 30.12.2003. At that time, she was still pursuing her last year LLB course. She came back to India for attending her exams and again joined the respondent at New Jersey. There were disturbances in the marriage. Therefore, during their visit to India, the parties underwent counselling with Dr. Ahalya Raghuram at NIMHANS, Bangalore. During her stay in USA, the petitioner pursued her Para Legal Studies and for sometime worked as Legal Assistant. Differences amongst the couple reached peak and ultimately, the petitioner returned to India on 24.02.2009. 5. Thereafter, petitioner filed M.C.No.729/09 before the trial Court for dissolution of marriage. Ahalya Raghuram at NIMHANS, Bangalore. During her stay in USA, the petitioner pursued her Para Legal Studies and for sometime worked as Legal Assistant. Differences amongst the couple reached peak and ultimately, the petitioner returned to India on 24.02.2009. 5. Thereafter, petitioner filed M.C.No.729/09 before the trial Court for dissolution of marriage. She also filed applications under Sections 25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming permanent alimony of Rs.50.00 lakhs and a two bed room residential accommodation in Basavanagudi for stay of herself and her daughter and Rs.50.00 lakhs for the maintenance of her child. The trial Court dismissed the said petition and awarded only Rs.10.00 lakhs towards the maintenance of the daughter. 6. Then the petitioner took up the matter before this Court in the above appeal. This Court by Judgment dated 12.11.2013 allowed the appeal holding that the trial Court has not considered each and every act of cruelty alleged independently and even the maintenance awarded is inadequate and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 7. The petitioner challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A.No.14164/15. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 18.10.2016 set-aside the order of this Court and remanded the matter to this Court to decide the entitlement of the appellant for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act on merits and the question of alimony, if divorce is to be granted. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that this Court will decide the quantum of maintenance that would be appropriate for the daughter. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that this Court will decide the quantum of maintenance that would be appropriate for the daughter. 8. The petitioner in her petition, alleged the following acts of cruelty: (1) Soon after the marriage, the respondent and his parents abused her and her parents expressing their dissatisfaction that the performance of the marriage was not befitting their stature and therefore, the respondent is entitled to treat the petitioner as maid servant at home; (2) The respondent was abusing her and her parents in foul language; (3) For all minor things, the respondent was pressurizing her to apologize and pressurized her to resign her employment; (4) During their stay in America the respondent used to be always angry at her for no reasons; (5) He was discriminating between his parents and her parents and relatives in showing the courtesies; (6) The respondent was not allowed to visit her parents house and whenever she had to visit, that would have been only after an issue; (7) The respondent did not care for the maintenance of herself and her child; (8) He was not allowing her to draw money from her Savings Bank Account; (9) He forced her to issue authorization letter in favour of his father for operating her bank account; (10) During her pregnancy, he did not speak to her and he was not accompanying her to consult the Doctor; (11) He did not arrange for the visit of her parents to New Jersey for her prenatal and postnatal care and only after the intervention of his sister, he arranged the VISA for them but, still did not arrange for their air fare; (12) He used to come home late and was not attending to baby's needs etc; (13) He was not talking to the petitioner's parents during their stay of 5 months in New Jersey; (14) He did not arrange for the baby's care and did not share the baby's day care expenses; (15) He cancelled the petitioner's add-on-card; (16) She developed High Blood Pressure during pregnancy due to the ill treatment of the respondent and ultimately, not being able to withstand the cruelty, when she sought to return to India, he imposed a condition that only on she facilitating him for a decree for divorce by mutual consent in New Jersey Court, she will be allowed to go to India; (17) Despite she intimating him of her departure from New Jersey to India, he filed a police complaint in USA alleging that she has abducted the child which resulted in Interpol people interrupting her journey in Frankfurt Airport; (18) To defame her, he spread rumors among friends and relatives that she is in search by the Interpol as child abductor and will be sent to jail soon. 9. The respondent contested the petition denying all the allegations and as against that he contended that the petitioner was arrogant towards his parents and did not discharge the duty of a wife and mother and he took all care of her. Before the trial Court, the petitioner got herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.12. The respondent got examined himself as RW1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to R.39. 10. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the petition for divorce holding that (a) except the oral evidence of the petitioner, she did not produce any material to show that she developed High Blood Pressure due to the alleged harassment of the respondent and she has not filed any police complaint against the respondent and his parents in respect of alleged demand for gifts and humiliation; (b) that the petitioner has not accounted each single incident of cruelty specifically and non-payment of day care expenses for the child does not amount to cruelty as the petitioner was also employed; (c) that if the respondent intended to abuse her economically, he would not have paid air fare for the petitioner's travel for the purpose of her law examinations and the fees for her Para Legal course training and he would not have allowed her to work; (d) that the husband has already obtained a decree in the New Jersey Court and petitioner admits the service of notice in that case and does not claim that the said decree is obtained by fraud. Therefore, in view of that decree, she is again not entitled for a decree of divorce. 11. The petitioner herself argued the matter before this Court reiterating the grounds of appeal. In support of her arguments, she relied upon the following judgments: (1) Y. Narasimha Rao & Ors. v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi & Anr. ( (1991)3 SCC 451 )(1991(2) SCR 821) (2) V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat ( AIR 1994 SC 710 ) Regarding grant of alimony, she relied upon the following judgments: (1) Sunitha Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha ( AIR 2015 SC 554 ) (2) Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar (AIR 2011 SCC 2748) 12. The respondents counsel supporting the findings of the trial Court argued that there is already a decree of the foreign Court, therefore, the trial Court is justified in rejecting the petition. v. Anil Kachwaha ( AIR 2015 SC 554 ) (2) Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar (AIR 2011 SCC 2748) 12. The respondents counsel supporting the findings of the trial Court argued that there is already a decree of the foreign Court, therefore, the trial Court is justified in rejecting the petition. He further argued that the conduct of the petitioner shows that the fight was always over financial matters and that shows that the petitioner always wanted only money instead of joining the husband. He further argued that the cruelty alleged are only the normal wear and tear of the family life and the petitioner failed to bring her case within the purview of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. 13. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: (1) Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur ( (2010)14 SCC 301 ) (2) K. Srinivas Rao v. D A Deepa ( (2013)5 SCC 226 ) (3) Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur ( (2009)1 SCC 422 ) (5) Ramchander v. Ananta ( (2015)11 SCC 539 ) (6) Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh ( (2007)4 SCC 511 ) 14. To find out whether there is cruelty and whether the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court is sustainable or not, the scope and ambit of the cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act has to be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment in Samar Ghosh's case (supra) has held that it is impossible to give the definition of mental cruelty having regard to the complex nature of the human behaviour and it depends upon the up-bringing level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. It is further held that there cannot be any straight jacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters and that has to be seen in the context of the time and the aforesaid other relevant factors and peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court listed the following as some instances of cruelty as illustrations and though not exhaustive as under: (i) On consideration of the complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make it possible for the parties to live with each other, could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On a comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, if it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty; but frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other for a long time, may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting the physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness, causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness which cause unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset, but may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such as act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie the law in such cased does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situation, it may lead to mental cruelty. 15. Though the parties have relied upon several decisions, in the opinion of this Court, the above Judgment had laid the guidelines very elaborately on the point of 'cruelty'. As already pointed out, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner at an early age was a sports celebrity and was employed. Her first allegation is that she was forced to resign and the respondent and her father-in-law took over her financial affairs and was forced to execute an authorization letter in favour of the father of the respondent to operate her account. 16. RW1 in his cross examination at page 11 paragraph 2 admits that the petitioner was a 3rd rank National Badminton Champion and the holder of Ekalaya award. He admits that she traveled to several countries representing India in the Badminton matches. This shows her sound social, economical and professional family background. He admits that the petitioner had nobody except him in New Jersey when she joined him there. He admits that she traveled to several countries representing India in the Badminton matches. This shows her sound social, economical and professional family background. He admits that the petitioner had nobody except him in New Jersey when she joined him there. At page 10 paragraph 2 of his cross-examination he states that there was no mutual trust between him and the petitioner in the financial matters. Therefore, they were subjected to counselling. 17. At page 20 paragraph 3 of his cross examination, the respondent admits that after marriage the petitioner executed General Power of Attorney in favour of his father before she left for America to look after her bank affairs. He admits that his father has collected the proceeds of her LIC policy. He admits that he had not paid the premium of those policies. Though, it is contended that the father of the respondent drew the amount from the accounts of the petitioner and collected her policy amount to acquire a BDA site under sports quota in the name of the petitioner, admittedly, no site is acquired in her name in the sports quota. The respondent has not produced any material to show that the amount so collected by the father of the respondent is refunded to the petitioner. 18. Though it is contended that the petitioner herself executed the power of attorney/authorization letter to enable the father-in-law to apply for the site etc., the respondent does not examine his father before the Court. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in the cross examination of the petitioner to show that she has voluntarily executed those documents. If the execution of the authority letter was for the purpose of attending the transactions for acquiring the BDA site or for any other convenience, she could have as well executed such authority letter in favour of her parents. It is not the case of the respondent that he or his father asked the petitioner to execute such authorization letter/power of attorney in favour of her father. 19. When suggested in his cross examination, that his father compelled her to sign the SBI mandate form, RW1 pleads ignorance. It is hard to believe that he does not know what transpired between his wife and his father. He does not choose to examine his father though all along it is his case that the petitioner was arrogant, disrespectful and indifferent towards his parents. 20. It is hard to believe that he does not know what transpired between his wife and his father. He does not choose to examine his father though all along it is his case that the petitioner was arrogant, disrespectful and indifferent towards his parents. 20. Without appreciating these facts and the circumstances, the trial Court says that the petitioner's case of cruelty in connection with demand for money has to be disbelieved because she has not filed the complaint against the husband and the parents-in-law which is erroneous. 21. It is the case of the petitioner that to make her helpless in an alien country, to pressurize her for a consent divorce as it would work out cheaper to the respondent to get such a remedy, he cancelled the add- on card to deprive her of her basic necessities. RW1 admits that after a reconciliation meeting in his sister's house, he agreed to give the petitioner 400 dollars per month for her expenses. That shows, he had stopped giving her any money. 22. RW1 at page 15 of his cross examination states that he cancelled the add-on card because he lost his card. He had not adduced any evidence to show that he had lost his credit card therefore, he cancelled the add-on card. He admits that the petitioner felt bad when her credit card was cancelled. If at all, he had lost his credit card, he should have acquired another credit card and on acquiring such credit card, he should have secured an add-on card for the petitioner. Contrary to that, the respondent at his cross examination at page 15 admits that he did not make any attempt to renew the add-on card of the petitioner or secure a new credit card for her. 23. Ex.P.4 is admittedly the mail sent by the respondent to the petitioner. In Ex.P.4, his statement regarding cancellation of the add-on card is as follows: "After all these incidents I came to the realization of the criminal mentality of you and your father which is why I cancelled the credit card. But now I think that the decision I made was the correct decision". In Ex.P.4, his statement regarding cancellation of the add-on card is as follows: "After all these incidents I came to the realization of the criminal mentality of you and your father which is why I cancelled the credit card. But now I think that the decision I made was the correct decision". The above statement clearly shows that the respondent has deliberately cancelled the add-on card of the petitioner and now comes up with a false plea before this Court that he had lost his credit card, therefore the add-on card had to be cancelled. That shows that the respondent is capable of taking false pleas knowing them to be false and deposes to the falsehood before the Court though he is an engineer himself and aware of the consequence of giving false evidence. If he can do that with the Court, one can imagine how would be his conduct with a helpless woman with a child in an alien country to bring her to his terms. 24. His other contention is that the wife was crazy and always shopping and merry making. Therefore, leaving the child at a very tender age, she joined the employment. 25. Firstly, the above discussed evidence shows that respondent deprived the wife and daughter of required support. Secondly, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent thought of acquiring a house in America and therefore, planned that both of them could work and earn money. That is why, he put her for the paralegal course study. The respondent in his cross-examination at page 11-12 admits to the said fact in the following manner: VERNACULAR MATTER 26. The respondent in his cross-examination at page 13 admits that the petitioner was attending to her employment leaving the child in the nearest day care centre and she was remitting the fee of the said day care centre. He even goes to the extent of saying that he does not know how much amount she was paying. He admits that he had not made any other arrangement to take care of the child during the absence of the petitioner to attend to her work. He himself admits that for her job in Nelson, Fromer & Crocco Law Firm, the petitioner was getting only 30 dollars per day. 27. He admits that he had not made any other arrangement to take care of the child during the absence of the petitioner to attend to her work. He himself admits that for her job in Nelson, Fromer & Crocco Law Firm, the petitioner was getting only 30 dollars per day. 27. RW1 admits that after she coming over to US till she joined the Jakie Biddle Attorney Company, she was not having any income of her own and she was depending upon him. He admits that to patch up the differences, there was a meeting in the house of his sister and there it was decided to bear 400 dollars per month for her personal expenses. RW1 in his cross examination at page 30 admits that after the marriage, while flying to USA, he had not given her any money. When it was suggested to him that her monthly salary was only Rs.8000/- and after defraying her personal expenses, she was getting only Rs.2000/- as surplus money, he pleads his ignorance for that. 28. RW1 in his cross examination says that there was a breakdown of marriage between him and the petitioner even before the petitioner returned to India. He claims that he intended to seek the dissolution of the marriage in the American Courts and he had no intention to get the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. He clearly says that by that time he had already consulted one American lawyer and one Indian lawyer and had taken their consent. He admits that his Advocates had advised him that it is easy to get the divorce by mutual consent and if he alone files the petition for divorce and if the wife resists, then he has to spend lot of money. He admits that since their marriage was only 5 years old, if the divorce takes place as per the American law, at the most he had to pay only 2½ years maintenance. Though he denies that for that benefit he was eager to take the divorce in American Court. This conduct of the husband amply shows that he maneuvered to take an ex parte divorce in American Court. 29. Though he denies that for that benefit he was eager to take the divorce in American Court. This conduct of the husband amply shows that he maneuvered to take an ex parte divorce in American Court. 29. RW1 in his evidence has clearly admitted that after the petitioner filing the present petition in India, she informed him about the same over the mail and despite that, he filed another petition before the Court in New Jersey for dissolution. Ex.P.3 is admittedly the mail sent by the respondent on 04.02.2009 in which the respondent has stated that he has consulted the lawyers and as per the opinion of the New Jersey lawyer, taking divorce by mutual consent in New Jersey takes 3-4 months time and since 5 years time is short-lived marriage he has to give 2 years or maximum 2½ years alimony and in that connection, he consulted his friend Deepak also. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said Deepak was also a wife tormentor and he was booked in a criminal case for physical violence against his wife. RW1 in his cross examination has admitted that after the said Deepak was released from the police custody, the respondent brought him to his house and gave him shelter in his house. 30. The respondent's own evidence shows that he was aware of the departure of his wife with child to Bangalore and still he filed a complaint alleging that his wife had abducted the child. It goes to show that even after the knowledge of the filing of the present petition, he filed a divorce petition which is at Ex.P.1 before the New Jersey Court alleging that the wife had abducted the child and left the country. Ex.P.1 shows that he has made a false declaration to the effect that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any pending matter in any Court or of any pending arbitration proceeding though he was aware that the pendency of present petition. 31. Ex.P.1 shows that he has made a false declaration to the effect that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any pending matter in any Court or of any pending arbitration proceeding though he was aware that the pendency of present petition. 31. Having regard to all these facts, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the petitioner that when she was alone with her tender aged daughter without any support in an alien country, the respondent who was supposed to be the only supporter for them to reap the benefits of a divorce at a cheaper cost in a foreign country, subjected her to financial distress and helplessness. That goes to show that he tried to held her captive to achieve such divorce. The above said facts and circumstances go to show that the petitioner's apprehension that continuing with the respondent in the matrimonial home was not safe to her is reasonable one. 32. It is also to be noted that in Ex.P.1 the divorce petition filed before the New Jersey Court wherein the respondent has declared that there has been no previous proceeding between him and the respondent respecting the marriage or its dissolution, which is again a false declaration. He has boldly stated in his declaration that he is aware that if any of the statements made are wilfully false, he is subject to punishment. Ex.P.2 - the mail sent by the petitioner to the respondent on 26.03.2009 which is admitted by RW1 shows that the respondent was aware of the pendency of the above said matrimonial proceedings before the Family Court at Bangalore. Despite that, on 4.8.2009 as found in Ex.P.1, has made such false declaration. 33. Ex.R.39 is the judgment of divorce passed by the New Jersey Court on 21.8.2010 in favour of the respondent. Clause 3 of the said judgment reads as follows: "That the order to Show Cause under Docket No.FA-13-1285-09 on April 8, 2009 remains in effect. Once the Courts in India have ruled on the Defendant's request for a divorce in India, the plaintiff may return to this Court for further relief, if appropriate". That itself goes to show that the judgment under Ex.R.39 is subject to the result of the Judgment in this case. Once the Courts in India have ruled on the Defendant's request for a divorce in India, the plaintiff may return to this Court for further relief, if appropriate". That itself goes to show that the judgment under Ex.R.39 is subject to the result of the Judgment in this case. Still the respondent claims that since already there is a divorce of the foreign Court, the petition is not maintainable and trial Court accepts the said contention. 34. A reading of Section 13 CPC shows that a foreign Judgment shall be conclusive subject to the exceptions mentioned hereunder: (a)...... (b)...... (c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of (India) in cases in which such law in applicable; (d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice. In this case there is no dispute that when the notice of the divorce petition filed by the respondent in New Jersey Court the petitioner sent a communication to the said Court saying that she is not going to participate in those proceedings as she has filed the above petition in this case. She did not contest the said matter. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Y. Narasimha Rao & Ors. v. Y.Venkata Lakshmi & Ors. ( (1991)3 SCC 451 ) has laid down the following principles to recognize the foreign matrimonial judgment in this country as follows: "Para 20 : From the aforesaid discussion, the following rule can be deduced for recognisizing a foreign matrimonial judgment in this Country. The Jurisdiction assumed by the Foreign Court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The Jurisdiction assumed by the Foreign Court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows: (i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domicile or habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties". As discussed above, the petitioner has not contested the divorce petition of the respondent in the foreign Court and he has obtained the said divorce decree by suppressing the fact of pendency of the wife's petition for divorce and giving a false declaration that no such case is pending in any Court. Therefore, the said Judgment cannot be recognised. Therefore, the trial Court committed error in dismissing the petition on the ground that the husband has already obtained a divorce decree from the New Jersey Court. 35. The respondent himself claims that he has filed a child abduction complaint against the petitioner thereby putting her to the threat of being arrested if she lands in America. All the above facts go to show that the respondent to bring her to his terms for divorce in New Jersey Court which confers him financial advantage deprived her of her sustenance by canceling her add-on card and not providing the maintenance for herself and her child in the foreign country. Further, even on petitioner managing to return to India, implicated her in a criminal case and ex parte divorce case. Once he divorces her, her dependent VISA loses validity and she becomes unlawful immigrant which would have entailed serving consequences. 36. The respondent in his written statement at para 10 gives the list of amount spent on the gifts given to the wife and the child, amount spent on their honeymoon etc. Once he divorces her, her dependent VISA loses validity and she becomes unlawful immigrant which would have entailed serving consequences. 36. The respondent in his written statement at para 10 gives the list of amount spent on the gifts given to the wife and the child, amount spent on their honeymoon etc. In his affidavit at paragraph 24 filed in lieu of his chief-examination, he says that he has already invested over 17 lakhs towards the petitioner and gives the break-up of the said investment which includes again the sarees purchased for the wife, honeymoon trip and gifts made, jewelleries purchased for his wife and the child, when treating the wife as an investment, that itself is in a very bad taste let alone other contents of the affidavit and that amounts to cruelty. 37. Having regard to the up-bringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position and social status of the petitioner, such conduct amounts to cruelty. That cannot be called as mere abusing, shouting or nagging or a normal wear and tear of a marital life. When he tried to snatch means of sustenance of the petitioner, that amounts to depriving her of her right to life which amounts to violation of human rights. Therefore, this Court finds that the approach of the trial Court in appreciating the evidence with reference to Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act is incorrect. 38. Insofar as the alimony is concerned, indisputably the petitioner and her daughter have no source of their own income. The Trial Court says that the petitioner is a law graduate and was employed, she is capable of earning, therefore rejects maintenance. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha (2015(3) SCC(Cri) 589) in a similar case has held as follows: "Merely because the appellant/wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance" (emphasis supplied). 39. Having regard to that, the said approach of the trial court in rejecting the alimony to the wife is totally unsustainable. 40. RW1 in his cross examination at page 16 paragraph 2 admits that his annual income in the year 2010 was USD 1,12,000/- which comes to Rs.76,16,000/-. 39. Having regard to that, the said approach of the trial court in rejecting the alimony to the wife is totally unsustainable. 40. RW1 in his cross examination at page 16 paragraph 2 admits that his annual income in the year 2010 was USD 1,12,000/- which comes to Rs.76,16,000/-. Further, he admits in his own cross examination that he owns 50x80' BDA site in Vishveshwaraiah Layout. He admits that their house is renovated. He admits that the petitioner is suffering from High Blood Pressure. 41. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and judgment in Sunita Kachwaha's case he is supposed to give maintenance befitting his lifestyle or stature. At the time of giving evidence RW1 was 37 years of age. It is not his case that he is facing problems in his career. 42. In a similar question which was under consideration in Vinny Parmavir Parmar v. Parmavir Parmar ( AIR 2011 SC 2748 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/- to the wife lifelong. In the alternate, the husband was directed to deposit Rs.40,00,000/- in the name of the wife as final settlement. In fact, in the said case the husband had remarried with a child and had parents also and had to look after all of them. 43. Having regard to these facts and the Judgment in Vinny Parmavir Parmar's case referred to supra, rejection of alimony to the wife and the grant of alimony of Rs.10.00 lakhs in lumpsum to the daughter, is wholly unjust and unsustainable in law. The daughter has to be educated and married. Wife has no source of income of her own. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the Judgment in Vinni Parmvir Parmar's case, it is just and appropriate to award permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) to the petitioner and Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) towards maintenance to her daughter Tara Nittur. Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act speakes of alimony in terms of "such sum". Therefore, the claim of the petitioner in terms of a building for her accommodation cannot be considered. 44. In the result the appeal is partly allowed with costs. The Judgment and decree of the trial Court is hereby set-aside. The petition of the appellant under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of The Hindu Marriage Act is hereby allowed. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner in terms of a building for her accommodation cannot be considered. 44. In the result the appeal is partly allowed with costs. The Judgment and decree of the trial Court is hereby set-aside. The petition of the appellant under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of The Hindu Marriage Act is hereby allowed. The marriage of the appellant/petitioner and the respondent dated 14.11.2003 is hereby dissolved. The respondent is directed to pay permanent alimony @ Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner and maintenance of Rs.50,00,000/- to the daughter Tara Nittur. The said amount shall be deposited before this Court within six weeks from the date of this order failing which there shall be charge on the immovable properties of the respondent to secure the said amount. On depositing the amount as aforesaid the maintenance awarded to the child Tara Nittur, shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till she attains majority with liberty to the petitioner to draw the interest accrued on the said amount periodically. Draw decree accordingly.