Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1313 (JHR)

Susmita Prasad @ Susmita Saurav v. Raju Prasad

2025-05-07

RAJESH KUMAR, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Reference is made to the order dated 24.04.2025,which reads as under:- “In pursuance to the order dated 16th April, 2025, the response to supplementary affidavit has been filed. 2. It appears from the statement made in the response to the supplementary affidavit that the respondent got the liberty to establish that he is not financially viable so as to enhance the amount of alimony for the purpose of taking care of wife and child, who is suffering from autism. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has also tried to demonstrate that wife is financially strong since she has inherited movable and immovable property from her father. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has also impress upon the Court that the wife is working and from Para-G and Annexure-A of the affidavit dated 21.04.2025 it is evident that the wife is working as Guest Faculty. However, even accepting the fact that the wife is working as guest faculty but that cannot be said to be regular engagement. 5. This Court is mainly concerned with the future of the child, having the age of about 11-12 years, who is suffering from intellectual disability to the extent of 75 per cent, as per the assessment made by the duly constituted Medical Board, as per Disability Act, 2016. 6. The learned Family Court, vide order dated 22.10.2020, has directed to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000 per month to the child, when the child was about 8 to 9 years old. 7. The sole consideration of this Court is as to how the child, who is suffering from intellectual disability, will be maintained in such a meagre amount of Rs.8,000/-. 8. In addition thereof, the maintenance amount has been awarded to be paid in favour of wife to the tune of Rs.12 Lakhs as permanent alimony with some condition as available in the impugned judgment. 9. What has been argued by the learned counsel appears to be not proper since the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent shows the details of the property which the wife has inherited from the father. 10. Even accepting the fact that the property either movable or immovable has been inherited by the wife, it does not mean that the accountability and responsibility of husband towards his wife and the child, who is suffering from autism, will be waived out. 11. 10. Even accepting the fact that the property either movable or immovable has been inherited by the wife, it does not mean that the accountability and responsibility of husband towards his wife and the child, who is suffering from autism, will be waived out. 11. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid is of the view that the details of the income and property (including ancestral property) of the respondent-husband is required to be perused before passing necessary order. 12. It is made clear that after filing of the affidavit, this Court in order to verify the genuineness, may call upon the report from the concerned competent authority. 13. So far as the issue of making payment of the maintenance, as directed to be paid to the wife and the child, if it is being paid, let the details also be filed along with the details of the arrears thereof. 14. It has been submitted by the appellant-wife that her husband has never made any effort towards the child, even being the child is his son. 15. This Court, on consideration of the child, is of the view that the physical appearance of the respondent-husband is required on the next date, since the same will also be counted as an effort for mental improvement of the child, who is suffering from autism. 16. The wife is also directed to appear physically in Court along with the child. 17. Let this matter be listed on 7th May, 2025 as the first case.” 2. In terms of the said order, both the parties i.e, appellant-wife and respondent-husband are physically present in the Court today. 3. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, learned counsel for the respondent- husband has sought for leave of this Court to accept the counter affidavit which was to be filed in pursuance of the order dated 24.04.2025. 4. It has been submitted that the respondent, since resides in Mumbai and has come to Ranchi yesterday only, as such, affidavit although was ready but could not be filed. The copy of the same has been received by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the counter affidavit is taken on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that whatever proposal is being made on behalf of the appellant i.e., tune of Rs.3.00 Crore is beyond the financial viability of the respondent husband. 6. The copy of the same has been received by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the counter affidavit is taken on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that whatever proposal is being made on behalf of the appellant i.e., tune of Rs.3.00 Crore is beyond the financial viability of the respondent husband. 6. The respondent-husband has submitted that he has all compassion for his son and is duty bound to discharge his duty as a father towards his son, particularly, in a case where the son is suffering from autism i.e., intellectually challenged. He has further stated that he is making payment of the maintenance amount regularly towards his son, so far as the maintenance amount decided by the learned Family Court to be given to the wife and the son is concerned. However, the amount which is to be paid by way of maintenance to the appellant-wife, there is some balance amount i.e, Rs.5,45,000/- (Rs. Five Lakh Forty Five Thousand) as per the tabular chart reproduced at paragraph No.11 of the said affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount which has been proposed by the appellant-wife i.e., Rs.3.00 Crore cannot be said to be unreasonable amount taking into consideration the age of the appellant-wife i.e, 42 years and more particularly the son, aged about 11 years, who is suffering from autism i.e., intellectually challenged. 8. The appellant-wife has stated that she has no spare time for earning her livelihood since she has to take care of her son and in doing so whole day and night is consumed. Therefore, the proposal of Rs.3.00 Crore, in view of the aforesaid fact, cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable. 9. The respondent-husband has stated that he is ready to make payment as per his own earning i.e, salary, since he is working in Information Technology Sector in a Private Company posted now at Mumbai. 10. In response to that, the appellant-wife has stated that the husband is having the ancestral property in his native place as also in the City of Bhopal. 11. In response to that the respondent husband has stated that he is not aware about any ancestral property in his native place or at the city of Bhopal. 12. 10. In response to that, the appellant-wife has stated that the husband is having the ancestral property in his native place as also in the City of Bhopal. 11. In response to that the respondent husband has stated that he is not aware about any ancestral property in his native place or at the city of Bhopal. 12. However, the appellant-wife has stated that the respondent-husband since is the father and as such he is duty bound to take care of his son, who is intellectually challenged. 13. It is the co-accountability of both the parties i.e., wife and husband and therefore, the husband cannot be allowed to escape the responsibility of discharging his duty as a father towards his son. 14. This Court, in order to come to the appropriate finding on the issue of rationality and reasonableness, is of the view that the details of the property including the ancestral property of the respondent husband at his native place as also in the city of Bhopal is required to be brought on record, since, there is no reference to that effect in the counter affidavit save and except the details of his salary and the property jointly purchased by him and his father. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has sought for four weeks’ time to file an affidavit giving the details of the ancestral property as stated to be available in the native place and the city of Bhopal. 16. So far as the issue of the balance amount i.e., Rs.5,45,000/- to be paid to the appellant–wife is concerned, the respondent-husband has undertaken before this Court to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of four weeks, which will be transmitted in the Bank Account of the appellant-wife. 17. So far as the remaining arrear amount i.e, Rs.3,45,000/- is concerned, the same will be paid on month to month basis i.e., Rs.45,000/- without any interruption. After the arrear is cleared, the respondent-husband will continue to pay the maintenance amount as awarded by the learned Family Court i.e, Rs.8,000/- per month to the son. 18. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the respondent-husband, four weeks’ time is allowed so that the appropriate affidavit showing the details of the ancestral property is filed. 19. Accordingly, list this case on 12 th June, 2025 as a first case.