Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 1298
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Sri Manish Ranjan, son of Makeshwar Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Sweta Rani, daughter of Rajni Kant Prasad – Respondent
First Appeal No. 110 of 2019, First Appeal No. 117 of 2019
Decided on : 23-11-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Ms. Shatakshi, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate
Proper consideration of the parties' income and property is essential before awarding permanent alimony under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Headnote:
Alimony - Divorce Case - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(i-b), 25 - The court discussed the issue of permanent alimony and maintenance under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and set aside the judgment awarding alimony without proper consideration of the parties' income and property.
Fact of the Case:
The divorce case was filed by Sweta Rani seeking dissolution of her marriage with Manish Ranjan on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The family Court awarded Rs.25,00,000/- to the respondent as permanent alimony without proper consideration of the income of the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the family Court did not properly consider the income and property of the parties before awarding permanent alimony to the wife.
Issues: The issues framed by the family Court included the entitlement for a decree of divorce, permanent alimony, and any other relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court set aside the judgment awarding alimony and directed the family Court to adjudicate the issue of permanent alimony by permitting the parties to lead evidence on that issue.
Final Decision: First Appeal No. 110 of 2019 is allowed, and First Appeal No. 117 of 2019 is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to lead evidence in support of her claim.
ORDER :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
I.A. No.10797 of 2022 in First Appeal No. 117 of 2019
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our attention the communication dated 19th October 2016 addressed to Smt. Sweta Rani.
2. Through this communication, the Assistant General Manager of the State Bank of Hyderabad has informed her that gross salary of Manish Ranjan for the month of September, 2016 was Rs.92,930.76/-.
3. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant states that by filing an interlocutory application the appellant intends to bring this document on record to support her claim for enhancement in the quantum of permanent alimony.
4. As would appear from discussions in Original Suit No. 27 of 2017 (in short, the divorce case), the family Court has taken note of income of the respondent in the year 2018 which was about Rs.1-1.25/- lacs.
5. The observations made by the family Court in paragraph no.7 of the divorce case have not been challenged by the appellant in the present proceeding.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not feel it necessary to take the aforesaid communication dated 19th October 2016 on record and, accordingly, the interlocutory application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is disposed of.
First Appeal No. 110 of 2019 with First Appeal No. 117 of 2019
7. The divorce case was filed by Sweta Rani seeking dissolution of her marriage solemnized with Manish Ranjan on 21st March 2003 at New Godown, Gaya in the State of Bihar. The respondent seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of “cruelty” and “desertion” as envisaged under section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the HM Act”) filed the divorce case which has been decreed by judgment dated 11th July 2018.
8. This judgment in the divorce case has been challenged by the appellant on the ground that without answering the issue no.(ii) – whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent alimony?; the family Court has awarded Rs.25,00,000/- to the respondent as permanent alimony.
9. Briefly stated, marriage of the appellant with the respondent which was solemnized on 21st March 2003 could not continue beyond 2009 even though the couple were blessed with two sons. The respondent has pleaded that on occasion of the marriage Rs.6,51,000/-in cash, a Fiat Palio Car worth Rs.4,50,000/-, jewelries valued at about Rs.2,00,000/-and other household articles were given by her parents. She has made allegations of physical assault by the appellant on account of which she was constrained to lodge PC Case No. 09 of 2010 on 13th March 2010 which was later on registered as Adityapur PS Case No. 61 of 2010 under sections 323, 325, 307, 498A, 387 of the Indian Penal Code and section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. She has further stated that the appellant filed the petition under section 9 of the HM Act registered as Matrimonial Title Suit No. 373 of 2010 which has been dismissed on 25th June 2015. She has also stated that in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2011 which was filed for maintenance the appellant has been directed to pay Rs.17,000/-per month for expenses for the respondent and two children.
10. In the divorce case, the appellant did not appear and, therefore, the divorce case was set for ex parte against him.
11. The following issues have been framed by the family Court:
“(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce u/s (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of cruelty and desertion?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent alimony?
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief?”
12. On 3rd November 2022, the following order was passed by this Court:
“First Appeal No. 117 of 2019
The following prayer has been made in First Appeal No. 117 of 2019: “1. That by virtue of this present appeal, the appellant named hereinabove intends to move this Hon'ble Court for setting aside of the order dated 11.07.2018 decree dated 27.07
