Back
2012 Supreme(Cal) 500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ashim Kumar Banerjee and Shukla Kabir (Sinha), JJ.
Mita Dutta Ray
Versus
Priti Gopal Dutta Roy
F.A. No. 314 of 2007
Decided on : 13.6.2012
For the Appellant: Mr. Soumen Das
For the Respondent: Mr. Prabal Kumar Kukherjee, Mr. Dipendra Nath Candra, Mr. Soumabha Ghosh
The court has the discretion to determine the amount of permanent alimony to be awarded to a wife based on the husband's financial capacity and the wife's need for a permanent residence.
Headnote:
ALIMONY - PERMANENT ALIMONY - S. 25 HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - COURT AWARDED RS. 10 LACS TO WIFE AS PERMANENT ALIMONY - COURT CONSIDERED HUSBAND'S FINANCIAL CAPACITY AND WIFE'S NEED FOR A PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Wife filed an appeal against the divorce decree granted by the lower court on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. During the appeal, the court attempted conciliation between the parties but was unsuccessful. The wife agreed to accept the divorce upon payment of appropriate alimony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband's net worth was approximately Rs. 8,81,382.47, including the sale proceeds of two properties, bank balances, and life insurance policies. The wife did not have a permanent place of residence and was living in a rented accommodation.
Issues: 1. Whether the husband's affidavit disclosing his assets accurately reflected his financial status? 2. Whether the wife was entitled to a permanent arrangement for her stay in the city? 3. What would be the appropriate amount of permanent alimony to be awarded to the wife?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court observed that the husband's affidavit was cryptic and did not provide sufficient details to assess his real financial status. 2. The court acknowledged the wife's need for a permanent place of residence but found it challenging to arrange for the same due to the husband's limited capacity. 3. Considering the husband's financial capacity and the wife's need for a permanent residence, the court awarded Rs. 10 lacs to the wife as permanent alimony.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The husband was directed to pay Rs. 10 lacs to the wife as permanent alimony. The wife was to appropriate Rs. 4 lacs for herself and keep the remaining Rs. 6 lacs in a fixed deposit for their daughter's education. The husband was to continue paying maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,500 per month until the entire amount of Rs. 10 lacs was paid off. Thereafter, the maintenance would be reduced to Rs. 2,500 per month for the daughter's upbringing and education.
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J:
PLAINT CASE
1. Mita Datta Roy was married to Priti Gopal Dutta Roy. The marriage was fixed through negotiation by common relation and/or friend that was solemnized on December 8, 1994. Mita was originally from Orissa where her parents were residing. Her father was a businessman in Orissa. Her in-law’s family was disciple of Thakur Anukul Chandra. They were strictly vegetarian as claimed by Priti Gopal. According to him, Mita came from a different culture and it was difficult for her to adjust the culture, food habit of her in-laws that gave rise to initial discord. At least on five occasions she abruptly left her in-law's place and on each occasion her in-laws persuaded her to come back. In 1997, she gave birth to her only child. There was difference of opinion on the issue of daughter’s education.
2. Priti Gopal filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Matrimonial Suit No.4 of 1998. Despite his best efforts, he could not persuade Mita to come back to her in-law’s place. Priti Gopal withdrew the said suit and filed a suit for divorce being Matrimonial Suit No.85 of 2000 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Again there was rapprochement. Priti Gopal withdrew the second suit, however, situation did not improve, that gave rise to filing of the third suit for divorce being Matrimonial Suit No.12 of 2003 by Priti Gopal.
3. In the plaint, Priti Gopal alleged that Mita was paranoid. She caused mental cruelty to Priti by making incorrect allegations alleging extra marital affair Priti Gopal had with his colleague Sucheta Mallick and his elder sister-in-law (brother’s wife). He also alleged that Mita widely spread scandal that caused immense damage to his character resulting in mental cruelty. According to him, Mita went to his workplace and created a scene by making wild and bold allegations against Priti Gopal.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. Mita filed written statement denying each and every allegation that was brought against her. She however, hinted special relation Priti Gopal had been maintaining with two ladies named above. She complained that she had been driven out from her matrimonial home by her in-laws where her sister-in-law had played the leading role.
EVIDENCE
5. At the time of trial, Priti Gopal got support from his colleague Avik Paul who denied extra marital relationship of Priti Gopal with Sucheta. One doctor came to depose that Priti Gopal became a patient of depression due to matrimonial discord. Mita got support from the neighbours at New Alipur where the couple stayed together. The neighbours wanted to intervene to settle the discord between the couple, they were driven out. They also hinted at the lady (brother’s wife) mentioned above.
JUDGMENT
6. The learned Judge considered the evidence and ultimately signed the Decree of Divorce in favour of Priti Gopal. The learned Judge observed, Mita could not prove the allegation of extra marital relationship that would amount to mental cruelty to the husband. The workplace incident, referred to above, played a vital role in getting a divorce as the learned Judge believed the story and observed that it was a worse kind of mental cruelty. The learned Judge observed, “so I have every reason to believe that this is a warst form of mental cruelty made by the wife against her husband and in such circumstances there is every reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious to live with his wife, the respondent.”
APPEAL
7. Being aggrieved, Mita filed the instant appeal on July 20, 2007.
PRELUDE TO HEARING - CONCILIATION
8. The appeal was made ready for hearing. It appeared before a Division Bench on April 8, 2011 when it was released on personal ground of the Hon’ble Judge presiding over the said Bench. The matter was assigned to another Bench. The Division Bench asked the parties to appear in Court. Accordingly, the matter appeared before the Division Bench on May 4, 2011. The Division Bench found
