Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1541 (MAD)

V. Srivatsan v. S. R. Gayatri

2019-06-06

C.SARAVANAN, M.M.SUNDRESH

body2019
JUDGMENT : C. SARAVANAN, J. Prayer in C.M.A. No. 1551 of 2019: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 r/w Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to set aside the order dated 30.11.2017 in I.A. No. 359 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 passed by the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, granting an alimony of Rs. 23 lakhs to the respondent/wife. Prayer in C.M.A. No. 1660 of 2019: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 r/w Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to call for the records on the files of the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Coimbatore, set aside as null and void, the order and decree dated 30.11.2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015.) 1. Following two appeals are being disposed by this common order:- (i) C.M.A. No. 1551 of 2019: It has been filed against fair and decretal order dated 30.11.2017 in I.A. No. 359 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore. (ii) C.M.A. No. 1660 of 2019: It has been filed against fair and decretal order dated 30.11.2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore. 2. Both the appeals have been filed by the appellant husband, who was the respondent in the respective cases before the Family Court, Coimbatore. 3. By the impugned fair and decretal order dated 30.11.2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 impugned in C.M.A. No. 1660 of 2019, the Family Court, Coimbatore has dissolved the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent and has granted divorce at the instance of the respondent wife. 4. By the impugned fair and decretal order dated 30.11.2017 in I.A. No. 359 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 impugned in C.M.A. No. 1551 of 2019, the Family Court, Coimbatore has granted a permanent alimony of Rs. 23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs) to the respondent wife. This order has been passed pursuant to fair and decretal order dated 30.11.2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015. 5. On the same day, another order was also passed in H.M.O.P. No. 232 of 2016 filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. Court has dismissed the said application. This order has been passed pursuant to fair and decretal order dated 30.11.2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015. 5. On the same day, another order was also passed in H.M.O.P. No. 232 of 2016 filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. Court has dismissed the said application. The appellant has not filed appeal against the aforesaid fair and decretal order passed in H.M.O.P. No. 232 of 2016. 6. Both the appeals with which we are concerned were filed belatedly with a delay of 145 & 205 days respectively and were numbered pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2019 and 21.02.2019. 7. The respondent-wife had filed a petition for dissolving the marriage in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 before the Family Court, Coimbatore, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which has culminated in the impugned order. 8. The respondent had claimed a permanent alimony for a monthly maintenance of Rs. 54,000/- together with Rs. 60 lakhs based on the following calculations:- (1) From 01.08.2017, 25000 x 12 x 43.9 (The petitioner would receive as per average Age 69.9) According to WHO guideline and her current age is 26. Therefore (69.9-26=43.9) Rs. 1,31,70,000/- (2) Waiver because of one time payment (54.44%) Rs. 71,70,000/- (3) Reduced amount claimed as it is one time payment Rs. 60,00,000/- 9. The Principal Family Court had earlier awarded an interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- p.m. based on the salary certificate of the appellant which was marked as Exhibit P-4 dated 24.10.2014. As per the aforesaid certificate, the appellant was receiving a salary of US dollars 3512.19 and net pay of US dollars 2652.80 after paying statutory and other dues. 10. Considering the interim maintenance already awarded, a further sum of Rs. 23 Lakhs was awarded as permanent alimony. 11. Though the respondent wife has filed a lengthy petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955/1956, there is no clarity in the petition. 12. Equally, the counter filed by the appellant is also vague. Be that as it may, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are narrated hereinafter. 13. Both the appellant and respondent are well educated and hail from the same community. Theirs was an arranged marriage solemnized on 29.01.2012 in Chennai as per the Hindu rites and customs. 14. Be that as it may, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are narrated hereinafter. 13. Both the appellant and respondent are well educated and hail from the same community. Theirs was an arranged marriage solemnized on 29.01.2012 in Chennai as per the Hindu rites and customs. 14. At the time of the marriage, the appellant was employed with Infosys India. Soon after the marriage, he got employed in the United States and therefore, the respondent and the appellant left for the United States. 15. The young couple have indulged in quarrels and the reasons appear to be trivial. Both appear to have been affectionate to each other until the appellant’s mother visited them in the US and allegedly made a few insensitive remarks. 16. According to the respondent, the appellant’s mother made an unfair comparison about the dowry given by the respondent's family to the appellant during their wedding. 17. During her visit to the US, the Appellant’s mother had allegedly compared the salary of the appellant at Rs. 2,70,000/- pm ( US $ 4500 pm) and dowry given during the marriage by the respondent’s family. 18. Similar comparison was allegedly made by the appellant’s sister in the US when the young couple visited them. This according to the respondent, was an act of mental cruelty to warrant divorce. 19. The appellant expected the respondent to be a homemaker and cook food for him while he worked in the US. 20. Therefore, the respondent being a qualified person, also wanted to be employed and did not want to be a homemaker. 21. However, the appellant wanted the respondent to cook food for him and that too, as per his mother’s recipe and therefore wanted the respondent wife to communicate to her mother-in-law to get instructions as to how to cook. 22. The respondent wife appears to have resisted the same and this also appears to have led to matrimonial disharmony and quarrel between them. Apart from the above, the couple have abstained from physical intimacy. 23. The appellant and the respondent returned to India on 11.02.2015 for visa stamping by which time, their time relationship had soured. The tickets for the appellant and the respondent were sponsored by the appellant’s employer for the purpose of visa stamping. They were to return to the US thereafter. 24. 23. The appellant and the respondent returned to India on 11.02.2015 for visa stamping by which time, their time relationship had soured. The tickets for the appellant and the respondent were sponsored by the appellant’s employer for the purpose of visa stamping. They were to return to the US thereafter. 24. The respondent appears to have directly left to her parents home in Coimbatore while the appellant returned to his parents house in Chennai. The tickets for her onward journey from Chennai to Coimbatore were purchased by the respondents sister who was in U.K. Thereafter, the respondent and the appellant have not lived together. 25. It appears that both the fathers in-law talked to each other 2 days thereafter and a demand was made by the respondent’s father to the appellant’s father to return the degree certificates of the respondent. 26. According to the respondent, the appellant’s father appears to have stated that the certificates will be returned only if the respondent consented for a divorce by a mutual consent and without compensation. 27. The appellant was thereafter supposed to visit Coimbatore but allegedly failed to do so. This was cited as a ground for mental cruelty by the respondent in her petition. 28. The appellant returned to the US without the respondent and showed no inclination to take back the respondent to the US. 29. Meanwhile, the respondent issued a legal notice dated 25.02.2015 to the appellant. The said legal notice was marked as Exhibit P 13. As per the legal notice, the respondent stated that she has lost confidence with the appellant on account of mental agony suffered by her and on account of the demand for dowry and therefore, warned the appellant that she would be moving an application for dissolving the marriage and demand for maintenance. The respondent also asked the appellant to agree for divorce by mutual consent. 30. Exhibit P 13 legal notice dated 25.02.2015 is lengthy but fails to make a case for mental cruelty. In the reply notice-Ex.P14 dated 02.03.2015, the appellant has denied the allegation and stated that there was no danger to the life or safety of the appellant and was willing to live with the respondent. Again, the reply is equally vague. 31. The appellant has specifically denied that there was any demand for divorce by mutual consent. In the reply notice-Ex.P14 dated 02.03.2015, the appellant has denied the allegation and stated that there was no danger to the life or safety of the appellant and was willing to live with the respondent. Again, the reply is equally vague. 31. The appellant has specifically denied that there was any demand for divorce by mutual consent. He has also alleged that the couple have lacked physical intimacy during their stay in the US. 32. There is also a reference conciliatory meeting held on 20.02.2015 but the family members of the respondent spurned the opportunity to settle the dispute amicably. 33. The appellant has blamed respondent for not joining him in the US and also warned the respondent that the Visa was going to expire on 22.03.2015. 34. After the exchange of legal notice, the respondent appears to have exchanged email with her namesake Gayathri alias Gayathri Vijay wherein the respondent has stated that during latter marriage, the appellant had transferred a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent’s mothers account to be given to their friend Gayathri alias Gayathri Vijay and since this amount was transferred to the respondent’s mother, the appellant was misusing the same to make it seem as if the appellant had paid the amount to the respondent towards reimbursement of the marriage expenses and requested her friend Gayathri Vijay to transfer the amount directly to the appellant. 35. The appellant’s friend also replied and requested for furnishing of the account number for transferring the amount. 36. It is in this background the case came to be filed for dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent in HMOP No 506 of 2015. 37. The Family Court has dissolved the marriage vide impugned Judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 between the appellant and the respondent has found following instances of mental harassment by the appellant on the respondent:- (i) The conduct of the appellant’s sister and mother by making unfair comparison regarding the dowry given by the respondent’s family when compared with the income of the appellant. (ii) The indifferent attitude of the appellant by compelling respondent to speak to his mother for getting recipe for cooking meal for him. (iii) Denial of physical intimacy with the respondent and asking the respondent to talk to his mother everyday. (iv) For stating that the appellant paid bride price (Kanyasukam) to marry the respondent. (ii) The indifferent attitude of the appellant by compelling respondent to speak to his mother for getting recipe for cooking meal for him. (iii) Denial of physical intimacy with the respondent and asking the respondent to talk to his mother everyday. (iv) For stating that the appellant paid bride price (Kanyasukam) to marry the respondent. (v) By asking the respondent to cut ties with her parents. (vi) By resorting to domestic violence against the respondent. (vii) By failing to fulfill marital obligations. 38. The learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent submitted that a connected appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 pending before the learned Single Judge has been placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for being listed along with these two appeals. 39. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following decisions:- (i) Iqbal Singh Marwah and Others vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Others, (2005) 4 SCCC 370. (ii) M.S. Sheriff and Another vs. State of Madras and Others, AIR 1954 SC 397 (1). 40. The learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the appellant had contracted second marriage. Since the learned Counsel for the appellant was not able to confirm the position, we had orally directed both the parties to file an affidavit. We had therefore adjourned these two appeals by two weeks to ascertain the position. 41. From the contents of the docket order dated 07.02.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019, it is evident that the learned Single Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 acceded to the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant to club the hearing of all the cases together. This can be inferred from a reading of the order dated 07.02.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 which reads as under:- “Today, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, it was informed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant had already filed civil miscellaneous appeal before this Court and the same is posted before the Division Bench. 2. This criminal appeal is connected with the civil miscellaneous appeal. Therefore, it should also be heard by the Division Bench. Registry is therefore, directed to get necessary permission from the Hon’ble Chief Justice to post this Criminal Appeal to be heard along with connected Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.” 42. 2. This criminal appeal is connected with the civil miscellaneous appeal. Therefore, it should also be heard by the Division Bench. Registry is therefore, directed to get necessary permission from the Hon’ble Chief Justice to post this Criminal Appeal to be heard along with connected Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.” 42. Meanwhile, on 20.3.2019, the Hon’ble Chief Justice has also passed an order for tagging Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 with these two appeals. 43. On 12.4.2019, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the final hearing in these two appeals should be deferred and Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 should be heard by the single Judge and not by us. He submitted that the outcome in the aforesaid proceeding will have a bearing on the final outcome of these two appeals. 44. By an order dated 12.4.2019, while expressing our displeasure, we partly acceded to the request of the learned counsel for the appellant and directed delinking of the Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 and directed the C.M.A. No. 1551 & 1660 of 2019 to be listed on 22.04.2019. 45. While we do not wish to pass any order in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019, it would be pertinent to note the conduct of the appellant. He filed I.A. No. 6340 of 2016 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 immediately after H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 was filed by the Appellant before the Family Court, Coimbatore. 46. The Family Court, by an order dated 09.02.2017 in I.A. No. 6340 of 2016, held that since the trial had not commenced and in absence of any evidence and finding that the averments in the petition were false, invocation of section 195(1) of CRPC read with section 340 of the CRPC to punish the respondent did not arise. 47. The said order is dated 9.2.2017. The appellant however filed copy application only on 16.8.2017 i.e. after a lapse of six months. Certified copy was delivered to the appellant on 18.8.2017. It is thereafter Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 was filed on 22.11.2017 after a lapse of another three months and 8 days before the impugned fair and decretal orders were passed on 30.11.2017. 48. Meanwhile, C.M.A. No. 1660 of 2019 was filed on 06.02.2018 with delay of 162 days. Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 itself was filed with a delay of 233 days. 48. Meanwhile, C.M.A. No. 1660 of 2019 was filed on 06.02.2018 with delay of 162 days. Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 itself was filed with a delay of 233 days. The delay was condoned by the learned single Judge by an order dated 05.03.2018. 49. Delay in filing C.M.A. No. 1660 of 2019 was thereafter condoned on 13.03.2009. The delay of 145 days in filing C.M.A. No. 1551 of 2019 was condoned on 13.02.2019. 50. After the delay was condoned, these two appeals were listed hearing before us on 8.3.2019. 51. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that citing pendency of these three appeals, the appellant was scuttling the Execution proceedings filed by the respondent to recover the permanent alimony pursuant to fair and decretal order dated 30.11.2017 in I.A. No. 359 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 and was frustrating the respondent. 52. Learned Counsel for the respondent reiterated that the appellant had got married and therefore submitted that these present appeals were not bona fide. 53. We therefore asked the learned Counsel for the appellant if he could confirm the position. We had specifically asked the learned counsel for the appellant whether the appellant had indeed contracted a second marriage and if so, whether the appellant was serious in pursuing the present appeals particularly C.M.A. No. 1661 of 2019 and thereby jeopardize the 2nd marriage allegedly contracted by the appellant. 54. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant remained evasive. We therefore directed the appellant and the respondent to file an affidavit. 55. The respondent filed an affidavit dated 11.04.2019 wherein in paragraph 9 she has stated that the appellant has married for the second time with a person named Kavya on or about 29.08.2018 and 30.08.2018. 56. The appellant represented by his father filed an affidavit dated 22.04.2019. The affidavit is vague and does not categorically deny the allegation. One of the passages is extracted. “4(a) The paragraphs No. 9 appears after para 5 and para 12 follows paa No. 9. The conclusion is inescapable that the missing paras viz. para 6, 7, 8, 10 an 11 contained some objectionable material in its draft form and were later removed. Para numbers which continue without alteration is a signal to this effect that the respondent/wife, ably assisted by the draftsman has something to hide from this Hon’ble Division Bench.” 57. The conclusion is inescapable that the missing paras viz. para 6, 7, 8, 10 an 11 contained some objectionable material in its draft form and were later removed. Para numbers which continue without alteration is a signal to this effect that the respondent/wife, ably assisted by the draftsman has something to hide from this Hon’ble Division Bench.” 57. In the counter, apart from making other allegation that the respondent was spying on the appellant, the appellant has further stated as follows in para 7:- “The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgment of 2018, has held that once a divorce decree is granted and though appeal is pending, either party has a right to marry again notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal. The respondent has no right to harass or denigrate the appellant, his relatives and friends by misuse of the social media.” 58. Though not expressly denied that the appellant has got married for the second time, it is evident that the appellant has been evasive before us. The Appellant therefore wanted the case to be adjourned pending verdict in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019. 59. Not convinced with the bona fides of the request of the appellant, we therefore asked both the counsels to address their respective arguments on merits. Thus, we heard the appellant and the respondent on 24.4.2019 and reserved the cases for passing order. 60. The appellant's father who is the power of attorney attempted to have filed a memo/affidavit to transfer the case after orders to another Bench were reserved by us. A copy was given by the counsel himself to our Office hurriedly at the evening hours on 04.06.2019, perhaps sniffing the present orders were propsed to be passed. In fact, the appellant's father has filed a similar Memo before the Hon’ble Chief Justice on 03.07.2017 and had made unfair allegations against the presiding Judge of the Family Court Coimbatore. 61. The conduct of the appellant represented by his father is thoroughly disgusting as he has attempted to heckle the Judges and Court. 62. We are however refraining from imposing costs and from passing strictures against appellant and the counsel for the appellant. 63. 61. The conduct of the appellant represented by his father is thoroughly disgusting as he has attempted to heckle the Judges and Court. 62. We are however refraining from imposing costs and from passing strictures against appellant and the counsel for the appellant. 63. From the perusal of the records of the proceedings before the Family Court, it is noticed that the appellant has not presented himself before the Court and was represented only by his father and the same counsel and several interlocutory applications came to be filed some of which were tested before the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court. 64. Though, H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 was filed before the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, the trial was partly conducted by the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore and Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai and the arguments were heard by the Family Court, Coimbatore. Thus, three courts were involved. 65. These were on account of the petitions filed by the appellant to have the evidence partly recorded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore and Chennai even though the case was filed in Coimbatore to facilitate the appellant to appear through video conference from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. 66. Following interlocutory proceeding/supplementary preceded the passing of the impugned fair and decretal orders in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015:- Orders Dated Petition No Remarks Status 09.02.2017 I.A. No. 6340 of 2016 For alleged perjury by the appellant punishable under Section 195 (1) of IPC read with Section 340 of the CRPC. Pending Vide Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 30.11.2017 H.M.O.P. No. 232 of 2016 Petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court, Coimbatore dismissed the said petition. No further appeal has been filed by the appellant. I.A. No. 294 of 2016 Petition filed for interim maintenance pending disposal of the appeal. The appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- No further appeal is pending. 23.01.2017 I.A. No. 1099 of 2015 To permit the appellant to appear for trial through video conference. The said I.A was dismissed by an order dated 05.11.2015. I.A. No. 294 of 2016 Petition filed for interim maintenance pending disposal of the appeal. The appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- No further appeal is pending. 23.01.2017 I.A. No. 1099 of 2015 To permit the appellant to appear for trial through video conference. The said I.A was dismissed by an order dated 05.11.2015. The Court partly allowed the prayer in C.R.P. (PD) No. 1012 of 2016 06.09.2017 C.R.R. (PD) No. 3003 of 2017 filed by the appellant - To direct the Additional Family Court, Coimbatore to transfer H.M.O.P. No 506 of 2015 and H.M.O.P. No 232 2016 to Family Court at Chennai or nearby center for recording evince through video conference. (i) Directed the examination of the Appellant's witness Mr. Vinoth Kumar be examined by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai on 18.09.2017. (ii) The Court to complete the chief and cross examination of the appellant and the respondent between 12.09.2017 and 14.09.2017 (iii) The entire process should be completed by 20.09.2017 and thereafter the case to be argued before the First Additional Family Court, Coimbatore. 30.11.2017 I.A. No. 359 of 2017 Filed under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995. Allowed. C.M.A. No. 1551 of 2019. E.P. pending 67. Thus, the proceeding which culminated in the impugned orders were truncated before three different judges primarily on account of the appellant. 68. The appellant and his witness appeared through video conferencing before the Family Court, Coimbatore and Chennai. The appellant was evasive during cross-examination. 69. Further, the appellant was not present in a Court in the US or before any formal authority while giving evidence through video conferencing. 70. Perhaps, this is because there are no guidelines for conducting trial through video conference especially where one of the parties is out of the bounds of the Court for recording the evidence and is merely present on screen. The recording of Trial through video conference has given the appellant undue advantage to remain evasive. 71. With these few comments on the background and the conduct of the appellant in the proceedings before the Family Court and before us, we shall now deal with the merits of the case. 72. The recording of Trial through video conference has given the appellant undue advantage to remain evasive. 71. With these few comments on the background and the conduct of the appellant in the proceedings before the Family Court and before us, we shall now deal with the merits of the case. 72. In the petition there is an averment regarding an incident involving use of physical force by the appellant as a result of which the respondent bled on her lips while according to the appellant the respondent became hysterical and therefore to calm her, he attempted to pacify her resulted in a minor injury. There is some confusion as to the exact date of the said incident. 73. As per the petition filed under section 13(1)(i-a) by the respondent, the said incident is supposed to have taken place on 28.12.2014 and that the respondent wife refrained from calling the police helpline 911 in the US to preserve her reputation in the society. 74. According to the appellant the relationship was cordial but during January, 2015, the respondent became hysterical and therefore, had to be calmed down and had threatened to call the police helpline 911. 75. The transcript of the telephonic conversation vide Ex.P17 between the respective mother-in-law indicates that indeed there was some physical abuse by the appellant resulting in bleeding. The appellant’s mother has justified the same stating that it was quite natural for the appellant to have calmed down the respondent when she got hysterical and created a scene. 76. Apart from the above, the respondent has also alleged that the appellant’s family was demanding dowry and therefore frequently harassed the respondent. 77. During cross examination the respondent has stated that the appellant and the respondent lived together in the US between 06.05.2012 and 01.08.2015 and that thereafter she lived with the appellant for three days from 10.12.2015 till 07.02.2016 . This indicates that the parties have lived briefly even after the respondent had filed the divorce petition. 78. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. Before the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, the respondent filed 19 Exhibits (Exhibit P1-19). The respondent deposed evidence as PW-1. On behalf of the appellant Exhibit R1-29 were marked. The appellant and his friend Vinoth Kumar deposed evidence as RW-1 and RW-2 respectively. 79. 78. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. Before the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, the respondent filed 19 Exhibits (Exhibit P1-19). The respondent deposed evidence as PW-1. On behalf of the appellant Exhibit R1-29 were marked. The appellant and his friend Vinoth Kumar deposed evidence as RW-1 and RW-2 respectively. 79. The appellant had initially filed I.A. No. 1099 of 2015 in the above H.M.O.P to permit him to appear in court through videoconferencing. The Family Court had declined the same by its order dated 05.11.2015. 80. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred C.R.P. (PD) No. 1012 of 2016. By an order dated 23.01.2017, the Court had allowed the prayer. The appellant was directed to bear the incidental expenses for the trial through video conferencing. 81. Thereafter, the appellant filed C.R.P. (PD) No. 3003 of 2017 to direct the Additional Family Court, Coimbatore to transfer H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 and H.M.O.P. No. 232 of 2016 to transfer the case to Family Court at Chennai or nearby center for video conferencing. 82. By an order dated 6.9.2017, this Court in C.R.P. (PD) No. 3003 of 2017 had directed the examination of the Appellants witness RW-2 Mr. Vinoth Kumar by the Principal Judge, Family Court on 18.9.2017 while at the same time directed the court to complete the chief and cross examination of the appellant and the respondent between 12.9.2017 and 14.9.2017 at Coimbatore with a further direction to complete the entire process by 20.9.2017 for arguments before the First Additional Family Court, Coimbatore. 83. Thus, the pleadings were completed before the Family Court at Coimbatore. Evidence was recorded before the Principal Family Court, Chennai and thereafter the case was transferred back for arguments to the Principal Family Judge at Coimbatore which has culminated in the respective impugned fair and decretal orders. 84. The Principal Family Court framed the following issues:- (a) In H M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015:- Whether the petitioner/wife is entitled to relief of divorce from the respondent/husband as prayed for by her? (b) In I.A. No. 359 of 2017 in H M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015:- Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief of permanent alimony as prayed for? 85. According to the respondent, the couple did not have physical intimacy and each of them has accused each other for lack of sex. (b) In I.A. No. 359 of 2017 in H M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015:- Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief of permanent alimony as prayed for? 85. According to the respondent, the couple did not have physical intimacy and each of them has accused each other for lack of sex. The appellant has accused the respondent for abstaining from and denying sex to him vide Exhibit P-10 email dated 16.02.2015. 86. The present appeals have been pressed into service only after the delay particularly when the respondent wife had initiated execution proceedings before the Principal Family Court at Coimbatore in E.P. No. 10 of 2018 to execute the Judgment and Decree which awarded permanent alimony. 87. The appellant took time in the said execution proceedings through the same counsel who appears before this court stating that in view of these two appeals before this court against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2017 made in I.A. No. 359 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015. 88. The appellant has not denied the second marriage. The affidavit filed by the appellant is evasive. 89. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has refused to give further details and submitted that the enquiry in the present appeal may be deferred pending disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 which was pending before the learned single judge. 90. The respondent hurried and issued Ex.P13 legal notice dated 25.02.2015 instead of approaching a family counselor or therapist to solve the differences between them. The respondent chose to distance herself from the appellant and precipitated the issue by filing a petition under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principle Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore. Thus, the respondent herself quelled all scope for rapprochement between them and the appellant and facilitated further distancing between them. 91. The appellant on the other hand chose to stay away physically from the proceedings and decided to let in evidence through video-conference though the Family Court had originally declined such a prayer. 92. The recording of evidence of the appellant and his witness RW-1 through video conference also gave an undue advantage to the appellant inasmuch as he remained evasive on several occasions during cross examination. 93. Thus Family Court could not follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter IV of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 92. The recording of evidence of the appellant and his witness RW-1 through video conference also gave an undue advantage to the appellant inasmuch as he remained evasive on several occasions during cross examination. 93. Thus Family Court could not follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter IV of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, a duty has been cast on the Family Court to make an endeavour to assist and persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject matter. Thus, the Family Court could not follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter IV of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 94. Further, the Family Court also could not take the assistance of welfare experts under Section 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The entire scheme of the Family Courts Act, 1984 was frustrated by the appellant being away from the Court while the proceedings were being conducted through virtual media. 95. Thus, the Family Court also could not effectively persuade both the parties to resolve the dispute to bring an amicable solution to preserve the marriage between the couple. 96. The appellant further took advantage during trial to frustrate every effort that would have been otherwise possible for the Court to nudge the parities to come to an amicable solution. The appellant filed two Revision Petitions forcing the Family Court to complete the trial through video conference in a truncated manner partly in Coimbatore and partly in Chennai. 97. The appellant has not categorically denied having contracted 2nd marriage. We have no doubt in our mind that the concern of the appellant is the permanent alimony awarded. 98. By setting aside the impugned Fair and Decretal Order dated 13.11.2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, we will be not only be doing injustice to the respondent but also to the person with whom the appellant had allegedly contracted 2nd marriage. 99. We had also requested the learned counsel for the appellant to clarify the position. 99. We had also requested the learned counsel for the appellant to clarify the position. However, he could not categorically deny the same while at the same time referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant wherein it has been stated that the respondent cannot not have objection even if the appellant had married for the 2nd time during the pendency of the present appeal. The counsel went to the extent of claiming privilege on the communication with the appellant over the alleged second marriage. He did not want to answer when asked if the decree for divorce could be confirmed. 100. If the intention of the appellant was bona fide, he should have filed C.M.A. No. 1660 of 2019 immediately before the limitation expressed and stayed the operation of the impugned Fair and Decretal Order dated 13.11.2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015. The fact that the appellant has not filed any appeal against the order dated 30.11.2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 232 of 2016 indicates he is not serious about rejoining or taking back the respondent. 101. Instead, the Appellant filed the appeals belatedly. It appears to have inspired only to deny the respondent to benefit of the permanent alimony allowed by the Court which has been impugned in C.M.A. No. 1551 of 2019. Further, in the affidavit dated 22 April 2019 filed on behalf of the appellant by his father, the appellant has stated that the appellant can remarry notwithstanding pendency of the appeal. We find this approach of the appellant to be irresponsible and an abuse of the court proceedings. However, we are refraining from imposing costs on the appellant or passing stricture against the appellant though his conduct has not been bona fide. 102. We are therefore of the view that C.M.A. No. 1660 of 2019 is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 103. Therefore, the only question which can be considered on merits is whether the permanent alimony of Rs. 23 lakhs awarded by the Family Court vide impugned Fair and Decretal Order dated 30.11.2017 in I.A. No. 359 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 impugned in C.M.A. No. 1551 of 2019 is liable to be set aside or not based on the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. 104. 104. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers power upon the court to grant a permanent alimony to either spouse who claims the same by making an application. It prescribes a broad scheme for awarding permanent alimony and maintenance. The court has to consider the status of the party, the income and property and the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case while awarding permanent alimony and maintenance.’ 105. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act confers ample power on the court to vary, modify or discharge any order for permanent alimony or permanent maintenance that may have been made in any proceeding under the Act under the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 25. 106. Further, as per section 25 (2) of the Act, an order granting permanent alimony may be varied, modified or rescinded its the circumstances mentioned therein are made out. In this case the appellant has not brought any document or additional evidence to show that the permanent alimony granted in any manner be varied, modified or rescinded in future. 107. The Honourable Supreme Court in Vinny Parmvir Parmer vs. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 held that while considering a claim, the Court has to consider all the above relevant materials and determine the amount which is to be just for living standard and no fixed formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance and would depend on various facts and circumstances of each case. 108. It was further held that the Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute. The courts also have 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 mode of life she was used to live 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. These are all the broad principles the Courts have to keep in mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony. 109. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. These are all the broad principles the Courts have to keep in mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony. 109. In U. Sree vs. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 , the Court held that while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. The Court followed the decision rendered in Vinny Parmvir Parmarvs Parmvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290 and observed that while dealing with the concept of 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. 110. Recently, in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 , it was held that the amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and maintenance was always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. 111. In the present case, the appellant was well employed and earning income in US dollars. The respondent though qualified had initially agreed to become a homemaker at the time of the marriage. However, after marriage, the respondent appears to have had 2nd thought about being a homemaker and therefore wanted to pursue an independent career perhaps on account of the alleged insults heaped on her by the appellant’s mother and sister and the appellant. The fact remains that the respondent had sacrificed her chances of getting employed and had not taken up a career and has spent a good amount of time with the appellant as his lawfully wedded wife, hoping comforts and affection of the appellant. 112. The fact remains that the respondent had sacrificed her chances of getting employed and had not taken up a career and has spent a good amount of time with the appellant as his lawfully wedded wife, hoping comforts and affection of the appellant. 112. Thus, almost 3 years was spent after the marriage in frustration and another 2 years in litigation before the family court. After the respondent came back to Coimbatore in February 2015, the appellant also resisted the attempt of the respondent to pursue independent career by refusing to hand over the relevant certificates. 113. The fact that the appellant appears to have contracted 2nd marriage during the pendency of the present appeal also cannot be ruled out in view of the defiant attitude adopted before us in disclosing the truth. 114. The appellant was also evasive during the proceeding and failed to give details of his current salary during cross examination. The respondent on the other hand had no income of her own and was aged 27 years. The court considered the prospect of the respondent getting married in future and her intention to pursue higher studies in due course of time for going employment. 115. After referring to a plethora of decisions, the Principal Family Court has held that the appellant was indeed required to pay a permanent alimony as the marriage between them was shattered and that the respondent had become a burden to her aged and incomeless parents. The court however declined to grant permanent alimony based on the calculations given by the respondent. 116. The court also took note of the fact that appellant was employed in the US and considering the uncertainties involved in employment, the salary of the appellant alone cannot be considered for arriving at the quantum of permanent alimony. The court also held that age of the respondent also cannot be the only criterion for fixing the permanent alimony. 117. Thus, the amount that has been awarded by the Family Court appears to be just and fair. The Family Court has considered several factors to award the aforesaid amount. There has been proper balancing of the interest of the parties. 118. We are therefore inclined to uphold the order passed in I.A. No. 359 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 impugned in C.M.A. No. 1551 of 2019. 119. There has been proper balancing of the interest of the parties. 118. We are therefore inclined to uphold the order passed in I.A. No. 359 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 506 of 2015 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 impugned in C.M.A. No. 1551 of 2019. 119. In fine, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.