Saturday, August 2, 2014

Husband 2 pay 15lakh (1.5Mill) alimony even after CRUELTY & DESERTION divorce: Jarkhand HC 30 Jul '14


Husband earning Rs 70 K p.m. ordered to pay 15 lakhs (1.5 Mill) permanent alimony to wife AFTER a decree of divorce on grounds of CRUELTY & DESERTION !! : Jarkhand HC 30 Jul '14


* Divorce (cruelty and desertion) granted asking husband to pay Rs 10,000 p.m. or Rs. 7 lakhs as permanent alimony
* Wife does NOT appeal divorce, but seeks more money ... ONLY
* Husband ready to Pay rs. 12 Lakhs thru mediation... wife disagrees and seeks min Rs. 15 Lakhs
* HC directs husband to pay Rs. 15 Lakhs in the interests of justice .. To quote "...to ensure that the wife is paid maintenance befitting of the status of the parties. Thus taking into account the rise in the cost of living and the devaluation of money, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent - husband - Sandeep Santosh to pay a permanent alimony and maintenance of Rs.15,00,000/-. ...."


http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F. A. No. 89 of 2013

*************

Smt. Reena Kumari @ Apporva ... .... .... Appellant

Versus

Shree Sandeep Santosh .... .... .... Respondent

**********

CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

**********

For the Appellant : Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, Advocate Mr. Rabindra Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Dilip Jereth, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Abinash Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate & Mr. Veer Vijay Pradhan, Advocate
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
**********

Pronounced on 30/07/2014

Per Amitav K. Gupta, J :

The instant appeal is arisen out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No.10 of 2008, whereby the marriage of the appellant, Reena Kumari @ Apporva and respondent, Shree Sandeep Santosh was dissolved in terms of Section 13 (i) (a) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and the respondent was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month or fixed alimony and maintenance of Rs.7,00,000/- in lump sum to be paid by the respondent within six months from the date of order.

2. In the present appeal the appellant has not challenged the judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage however, she has impugned the quantum of permanent alimony and maintenance of Rs.7,00,000/- as too meagre.

3. Since the only issue to be adjudicated is with respect to the quantum of maintenance and alimony of Rs.7,00,000/-. It would be necessary to refer the provisions of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which reads as under :-

"Permanent alimony and maintenance - (1) Any court
exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the
time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent
thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by
either the wife or the husband, as the case may be,
order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant
for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum
or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not
exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard
to the respondent's own income and other property, if
any, the income and other property of the applicant [
the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of
the case], it may seem to the court to be just, and
any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a
charge on the immovable property of the respondent.

(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change
in the circumstances of either party at any time after
it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at
the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind
any such order in such manner as the court may deem
just.

(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose
favour an order has been made under this section has
re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has
not remained chase, or, if such party is the husband,
that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman
outside wedlock, [it may at the instance of the other
party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such
manner as the court may deem just]."

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the monthly salary of the respondent at the time of filing of Matrimonial Suit was Rs.22,000/- and evidence was laid that the respondent earns Rs.1,00,000/- from the landed property situated at his native place, besides the monthly salary. It is submitted that the appellant is gainfully employed as Lecturer in National Institute of Technology (N.I.T.) Kurushetra, Haryana presently drawing a salary of more than Rs.70,000/-. It urged that the appellant does not have any fixed source of income and considering the steep rise in the cost of living the alimony of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) should be enhanced. It is urged that the appellant is residing in her parental house and dependent upon her aged parents.

5. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has submitted that no doubt the salary statement of the respondent, for the month of June, 2014 shows that his gross salary is Rs.73,000/- per month but the respondent had taken loan from the bank to pay the permanent alimony amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, as ordered by the learned Trial Court. That he is paying monthly E.M.I of Rs.8,500/- to the bank for liquidation of the loan amount; that he has also taken home loan from his C.P.F account, for which Rs.17,000/- per month is deducted and his net take hand pay comes to around Rs.31,000/-.

6. Heard. This Court had directed the parties to settle the matter amicably to which the respondent had argued to pay Rs.12,00,000/- which is not agreeable and acceptable by the appellant who demanded that permanent alimony of maintenance be enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/-.

7. It is to be noted that essence of the provision for maintenance is to ensure that the financially weaker spouse is reasonably provided for by the other. The social status and living standard of the parties is to be taken into consideration. Admittedly, the appellant is a middle aged lady and on query, she has stated that she is employed as a Teacher in a private school. It is admitted by her that all the articles given at the time of marriage along with bank draft amounting to Rs.4,52,000/- have been returned by the respondent to her.

8. The appellant has not re-married and is residing with her aged parents. It is settled principle that directing the payment of alimony or maintenance is not in the nature of penalty, but only to ensure that the wife is paid maintenance befitting of the status of the parties. Thus taking into account the rise in the cost of living and the devaluation of money, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent - husband - Sandeep Santosh to pay a permanent alimony and maintenance of Rs.15,00,000/-. At this stage the respondent has submitted that he is willing to pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- but seeks liberty to pay Rs.7,00,000/- within two weeks from the date of the order and remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in installments as he has to repay the loan taken by him from the bank and also from his C.P.F account. This has not been objected to by the appellant.

9. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, the respondent is directed to pay Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) by way of demand draft drawn in the name of the appellant - Reena Kumari @ Apporva, within two weeks from the date of this order. He shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) in four equal instalments of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs). The first instalment to be paid within the first week of November, 2014 and remaining each of the three instalments shall be paid at an interval of three months.

10. It is also made clear that if the said amount is not paid within the stipulated period, then the respondent - husband shall pay an interest @ 9% on the unpaid amount. The appellant is also at liberty to realize the unpaid amount in accordance with law.

11. With the said direction and observations the appeal is allowed in part with the aforesaid modification of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court/ Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Title Matrimonial Suit No.10 of 2008.

(R. Banumathi, C. J.)

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Dated 30/07/2014


Chandan/- A.F.R



http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com


*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist