Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1168 (GAU)

Haren Chandra Ghosh v. Jharna Mandal

2019-10-31

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, AJAI LAMBA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajai Lamba, J. Haren Chandra Ghosh, husband has preferred this appeal in challenge to judgment dated 5.4.2018 rendered by Additional District Judge, FTC, Sonitpur, Assam, while dealing with Title (Divorce) Suit No.79 of 2013 (Shri Haren Ch. Ghosh Vs. Smti Jharna Mandal). 2. A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the appellant husband preferred suit under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. Vide the impugned judgment and decree, marriage has been dissolved by granting decree of divorce. The appellant-husband has also been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the respondent-wife as permanent alimony within a period of three months from the date of judgment. The present appeal has been filed by the husband with the plea that the alimony amount as determined is on the higher side. It has been pleaded that the appellant is a retired Intermediate School Teacher. The total retiral benefits received by the appellant are in the sum of Rs.6,86,000. The appellant has three unmarried sisters and two brothers who are doing daily labour. The appellant is drawing a pension of Rs.14,600/- only. On the said plea, it has been argued that the alimony be reduced. 3. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. J. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent is 39 years of age; has a ten years old daughter; the respondent wife has no source of income and is dependent on her parents and is on mercy of her brothers. In such circumstances, the alimony amount as determined by the Lower Court is fair. The impugned judgment be not interfered with. 5. It is the admitted case of both the sides that no documentary evidence was brought on record as regard the monthly pension of the appellant. Be that as it may, a document has been placed on record of the Court which has not been controverted by the respondent-wife. The document indicates that pension payable to the appellant is in the sum of Rs.14,600/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed that the retiral benefits received by the appellant-husband would be in the sum of Rs.6,86,000/-. 6. In regard to assessment of alimony payable to the wife, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in U. Sree Vs. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed that the retiral benefits received by the appellant-husband would be in the sum of Rs.6,86,000/-. 6. In regard to assessment of alimony payable to the wife, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in U. Sree Vs. U. Srinivas, while dealing with Civil Appeal Nos.8927-8928 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 37449-37450 of 2012 and arising out of C.C. Nos.5877-5878/2012), decided on 11.12.2012, has held in paragraph 33 (relevant portion) in the following terms :- "33. ....... Be it stated, while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematic exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. In Vinny Parmvir Parmar V. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 , while dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, this Court has observed that while granting permanent alimony, the Court is required to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. (emphasized by us) 7. Considering the law on the issue in context of the fact that no documentary evidence was brought on record to clearly establish the income of the appellant-husband, we are left with the admitted plea that the appellant would have received Rs.6,86,000/- approximately as his retiral dues, and would be getting Rs.14,600/- as monthly pension. 8. We having considered the above noted facts are of the opinion that the alimony as determined by the Lower Court is just and fair. The sisters of the appellant-husband have admittedly attained the age of majority. Likewise, the brothers of the appellant-husband are grown-up persons. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the burden of maintaining the said family members cannot be a just ground to deprive the respondent-wife of alimony. It is particularly so because, the respondent-wife has a daughter born out of the wedlock who is required to be brought-up and subsequently married. Considering the price index and other related factors, we find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the Family Court. It is particularly so because, the respondent-wife has a daughter born out of the wedlock who is required to be brought-up and subsequently married. Considering the price index and other related factors, we find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the Family Court. We do not find the alimony payable to the respondent-wife to be on the higher side. The determination appears to be within the parameters set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, portion of which has been extracted above. 9. We are also of the view that unless the appellate court finds that the evidence available on record has been perversely read, the reasons given by the Lower Court are legally not tenable or relevant evidence that goes to the root of the matter has not been considered, the appellate court is not required to interfere. Considering the said position, we hereby uphold the impugned judgment. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.