Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1155 (KAR)

N. v. Manjunath VS Priyanka

2023-10-03

G.NARENDAR, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

body2023
JUDGMENT VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J. - This appeal is filed under Sec. 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree dtd. 8/1/2020 passed in M.C.No.16/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur, (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Family Court') by which the petition filed by the appellant-husband under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty was allowed. The present appeal by the appellant-husband seeking to set aside the impugned judgment and decree insofar as directing the appellant to pay Rs.20, 00, 000.00 towards the marriage expenses and permanent alimony. 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 18/1/2015 at Doddaballapur town. The appellant-husband has filed petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The said petition was opposed by the respondent-wife by filing statement of objections. The Family Court has dissolved the marriage solemnized between the parties. The Family Court has directed the appellant to pay the marriage expenses amount of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 to the respondent-wife and the permanent alimony of Rs.10, 00, 000.00. The present appeal by the appellant-husband is seeking to set aside the award of marriage expenses and permanent alimony. In the aforesaid factual matrix the present appeal is filed. 3. Sri.N.Nanjundaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband submits that the Family Court has committed grave error in awarding marriage expenses of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 and permanent alimony of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 to the respondent-wife without considering the capacity of the appellant-husband to pay the said amount. It is submitted that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-husband is not employed and has no independent source of income to pay the said amount. The appellant-husband is deriving a meager income from the agricultural activity and is unable to pay the huge amount awarded by the Family Court. It is further submitted that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent-wife has completed her graduation out of the money of the parents of the appellant-husband and she is an Engineering graduate working in a private company, drawing handsome salary of Rs.60, 000.00 per month and the appellant-husband has no such source of income. It is further submitted that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent-wife has completed her graduation out of the money of the parents of the appellant-husband and she is an Engineering graduate working in a private company, drawing handsome salary of Rs.60, 000.00 per month and the appellant-husband has no such source of income. It is also submitted that despite several panchayats, the respondent-wife failed to rejoin the matrimonial home which has compelled the appellant to file the petition seeking for dissolution of marriage and without any fault of the appellant, the Family Court has directed the appellant to pay the marriage expenses and the alimony to the respondent-wife. It is contended that the respondent- wife is a close relative of the appellant's family and the entire marriage expenses were borne by the appellant and his parents, hence the question of spending any money by the respondent-wife's family towards the marriage ceremony would not arise. It is further contended that the respondent has not placed any evidence to substantiate her claim for marriage expenses, on the contrary the appellant-husband has produced choultry rent receipt as Ex.P-3, which shows that the father of appellant has paid Rs.25, 000.00 towards choultry rent. The Family Court without considering these aspects has proceeded to award the marriage expenses. It is also contended that the Family Court has erred in taking note of the documents at Exs.R-1 to R-10 - the RTCs, the lands reflected in the RTCs are situated in different places, they are dry lands and only eucalyptus trees are grown on them and there is no regular source of income from the said lands. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment and decree insofar as award of marriage expenses and permanent alimony to the respondent-wife is concerned. 4. Per contra, Sri.K.P.Jayasimha, learned counsel for the respondent-wife supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court and submits that the award of marriage expenses of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 is based on the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the Family Court has assigned detailed reasons for awarding permanent alimony of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 in favour of the respondent-wife. It is submitted that the appellant-husband is a businessman and also having vast agricultural lands at different places and those agricultural lands are near to Doddaballapur town having non-agricultural potentiality. It is submitted that the Family Court has assigned detailed reasons for awarding permanent alimony of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 in favour of the respondent-wife. It is submitted that the appellant-husband is a businessman and also having vast agricultural lands at different places and those agricultural lands are near to Doddaballapur town having non-agricultural potentiality. It is further submitted that the appellant is not a stranger to the respondent; they are related to each other and due to incompatibility, they started living separately, the Family Court considering this aspect has dissolved the marriage. The appellant and his parents are financially well placed, having movable and immovable properties, hence, the award of marriage expenses and the alimony is very meager and does not call for any interference in the present appeal. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-husband, learned counsel for the respondent-wife, perused the memorandum of appeal and the Family Court records. 6. The dispute in the present appeal is only with regard to award of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 as marriage expenses and Rs.10, 00, 000.00 as permanent alimony to be paid to the respondent-wife by the appellant-husband. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is none other than the daughter of brother of the appellant's mother. The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 18/1/2015. The respondent-wife in her evidence has clearly stated that it is her family members, who have performed the marriage and incurred expenses amounting to Rs.30, 00, 000.00 since the respondent is the only daughter to her parents. It is further deposed that the parents of the respondent have given gold ornaments, clothes, bracelets, necklace, chain, watch and silver articles and cash of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 as a customary practice to the appellant. It is further deposed that the parents of the respondent have given gold ornaments, clothes, bracelets, necklace, chain, watch and silver articles and cash of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 as a customary practice to the appellant. It is also deposed that the appellant and his family members are having weighing bridge in the name and style of "Lakshmi Weigh Bridge" at Doddaballapura, "Lakshmi Weighers", Doddabelvangala, "Lakshmi Weighers", Koratagere, "Lakshmi Weighers", Muddalinganahalli, and having agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.57 measuring to an extent of 0.07 guntas, Sy.No.58/2 measuring to an extent of 0.05 guntas, Sy.No.58/1 measuring to an extent of 0.05 guntas, Sy.No.58/3 measuring to an extent of 0.06 guntas, Sy.No.59 measuring to an extent of 0.21 guntas, Sy.No.45/7 measuring to an extent of 0.05 guntas, Sy.No.45/6 measuring to an extent of 0.05 guntas, Sy.No.45/3 measuring to an extent of 0.17 guntas, Sy.No.45/5 measuring to an extent of 0.05 guntas, Sy.No.45/1 measuring to an extent of 0.06 guntas, Sy.No.50/5 measuring to an extent of 0.06 guntas, Sy.No.35/2 measuring to an extent of 1.26 guntas, Sy.No.34/1 measuring to an extent of 1.00 guntas, Sy.No.45/2 measuring to an extent of 1.23 guntas, Sy.No.50/9 measuring to an extent of 1.24 guntas, Sy.No.47/1 measuring to an extent of 1.14 guntas and Sy.No.46 measuring to an extent of 0.23 guntas, all the properties are commercial properties are situated abutting National Highway at Naranahalli village, Doddabelavanagal Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk and they have got more than ten sites around Doddaballapura and two residential houses at Doddaballapura, in all sources, the petitioner having income of more than Rs.25, 00, 000.00 per month. The aforesaid assertion of the respondent-wife is based on the documentary evidence as the respondent-wife has placed Exs.R1 to R10 which has been seriously denied by the appellant. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant has the sufficient means of income to pay the awarded alimony. 7. The Family Court has recorded the categorical finding in paragraph Nos.22 to 28 and 32 to 33 of the judgment that the father of the respondent-wife has received compensation from the State authorities for having acquired his land and the said amount has been used for the purpose of performing the marriage of his daughter, the aforesaid finding of the Family Court is based on evidence available on record and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The appellant has examined Sri.Marishamaiah as PW-2, on perusal of the testimony of the said witness, no where he has deposed that the marriage expenses were incurred by the appellant-husband and his parents. Hence, the assertion of the appellant that they have incurred the marriage expenses is without any merit. 8. Insofar as award of permanent alimony of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 to the respondent-wife is concerned, the respondent has placed on record the oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate her claim for permanent alimony. The appellant has made oral assertion that the respondent-wife is gainfully employed in private company at Bengaluru, however no material is placed before the Family Court to substantiate the said assertion. The respondent-wife has claimed Rs.1, 00, 00, 000.00 (Rupees One Crore only) as permanent alimony, however the Family Court, based on the evidence available on record and keeping in mind the income and expenditure of the appellant, has awarded permanent alimony of Rs.10, 00, 000.00, which in this Court's considered view is just and proper and does not call for any interference. The amount awarded is for rest of her life, the respondent is aged about 30 years, by any stretch of imagination cannot be termed as higher permanent alimony. 9. This Court is conscious of the fact that while granting the permanent alimony the Courts are required to keep in mind various factors like social status of the parties, paying capacity of the husband, income if any of the wife, the dependents on the parties to the proceedings, cost of living and standard of living. This Court is of the view that while determining the permanent alimony, by the Court, it is required, to take note of various considerations. There cannot be any arithmetical formula for determining the permanent alimony to the spouse, the award of permanent alimony depends on case to case basis and based on available material before it. In a peculiar facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the award of marriage expenses and the permanent alimony by the Family Court is just and proper and do not call for any interference in this appeal. 10. In a peculiar facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the award of marriage expenses and the permanent alimony by the Family Court is just and proper and do not call for any interference in this appeal. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Family Court in the impugned judgment and decree calling for interference in the present appeal. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the present appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.