1. Divorce proceeding under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act — Award of permanent alimony and litigation expenses — Challenge to the quantum of alimony. (Para 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 350
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Jalendra Padhiary – Appellant(s)
Versus
Pragati Chhotray – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3876 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.9691 of 2015]
Decided On : 17-04-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Cryptic and unreasoned Order would be unsustainable in law.
Cryptic and unreasoned Order would be unsustainable in law.
Subject
Family Law - Permanent Alimony
Act Referred
Headnote
Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 – Section 13 – Family court granting permanent alimony of 15,00,000 – High Court affirming the same – No factual narration on the issue – No discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the material issues such as, financial earning capacity of husband to pay the alimony and also the financial earning capacity of wife – Order cryptic and unreasoned – Unsustainable in law. (Para 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-husband filed a petition against the respondent-wife seeking decree for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The Family Judge allowed the petition and passed a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage. The Family Judge also directed the appellant (husband) to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent (wife).
The appellant (husband) filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the order of the Family Court.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned order is unsustainable in law.
Result: Appeal allowed. Matter remanded to Family court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the award of permanent alimony was legally and factually sustainable given the lack of reasoning in the lower courts' orders. (Para 8 , 13 )
3. Lower courts failed to consider financial earning capacities of parties or provide reasoned findings, resulting in cryptic and unsustainable orders. (Para 15 , 17 )
4. Judicial orders must be reasoned, detailing facts, issues, submissions, applicable legal principles, and evidence-based findings to avoid prejudice to parties. (Para 16 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order fixing permanent alimony set aside — Matter remanded to Family Court for fresh determination on merits. (Para 10 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
6. What are the essential components of a reasoned judicial order?
A reasoned order must contain a narration of the bare facts of the case, the issues arising, the submissions urged by the parties, the applicable legal principles, and the reasons supporting the findings based on the appreciation of evidence. (Para 16 )
7. What factors must a court evaluate when determining the quantum of permanent alimony?
The court must apply its judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy, specifically including a discussion and categorical findings on the financial earning capacity of both the husband and the wife. (Para 15 )
8. What is the legal consequence of courts passing cryptic and unreasoned orders?
Cryptic and unreasoned orders are unsustainable in law because they cause prejudice to the parties by depriving them of the knowledge of the reasons behind the court's findings. (Para 15 , 17 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 03.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in M.A.T.A. No.113 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein in limine at the stage of admission, in consequence, upheld the order dated 17.09.2014 passed by the Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No.24 of 2011.
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and it would be clear from the facts stated hereinbelow.
4. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondent is the defendant in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises. The dispute is between the husband and wife and it relates to award of permanent alimony payable to wife.
5. The appellant-husband filed a petition against the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar seeking decree for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The respondent filed her written statement and denied the material averments of the appellant’s claim. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties, the Family Judge, by order dated 17.09.2014, allowed the petition and passed a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage. The Family Judge also directed the appellant(husband) to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/-and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent (wife).
6. The appellant(husband), felt aggrieved by that part of the order of the Family Court by which the appellant was directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/-to the respondent (wife), filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By judgment/decree dated 03.11.2014, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the order of the Family Court.
7. Against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant (husband) has filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
8. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant’s appeal in limine and thereby upholding the order of the Family Judge insofar as it related to awarding permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- to the wife(respondent).
9. Heard Mr. Kumar Gaurav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, learned counsel for the respondent.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order as also the order of the Family Court to the extent it fixes the award of permanent alimony and remand the case to the Family Court for deciding the question of grant of permanent alimony payable to wife afresh on merits in accordance with law.
11. The operative portion of the order of the Family Court reads as under:
“The petition of the petitioner is allowed on contest in favour of the petitioner. A decree of divorce is passed and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is hereby declared dissolved with effect from the date of decree. The petitioner is directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/-and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-to the respondent.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court reads as under:
“After looking into the allegations made and pleadings taken by the parties, as recorded in the impugned judgment, which during the course of argument could not be snipped, we do not find any reason to interfere with the amount of Rs.15,00,000/-awarded as permanent alimony to the wife by the learned Judge, Family Court. In the present time, the said amount is wholly insufficient for the wife to maintain her entire life.
Since we do not find any merit in the appeal, we dismiss the same in limine at the very stage of admiss
