Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.
Smt. Sweta Verma, wife of Rajesh Kumar Verma - Appellant
Vs.
Rajesh Kumar Verma, Son of Late Brahmdev Prasad Verma - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL No. 49 of 2023
Decided On : 29-01-2025
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1A) and (1B) - Appeal against decree of divorce and permanent alimony - The Family Court allowed the dissolution of marriage and directed payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- as permanent alimony. The appellant contended that the court failed to consider the parameters for determining alimony. (Paras 2, 10, 12, 14)
(B) Maintenance - Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance - The court emphasized that the financial status, reasonable needs, and standard of living of the parties must be considered in determining alimony. The judgment in Rajnesh Vs. Neha laid down essential criteria for alimony determination. (Paras 12, 13)
(C) Remand - The appellate court set aside the alimony award due to lack of sufficient reasoning and remanded the matter for reconsideration by the trial court. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed for divorce citing mental cruelty and desertion. The Family Court granted the decree and alimony. The appellant appealed, questioning the alimony amount.
Findings of Court:
The Family Court's reasoning for the alimony amount was insufficient, lacking consideration of relevant factors.
Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court properly considered the financial status of the parties and the criteria for alimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court ruled that the trial court's reasoning was inadequate and emphasized the need for a comprehensive evaluation of factors influencing alimony.
Result: Appeal allowed; matter remanded for reconsideration of alimony.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The appeal concerns the grant of permanent alimony in a divorce case, where the trial court awarded Rs. 10,00,000/- as a one-time payment to the respondent and her daughter (!) (!) .
The appellant contends that the trial court failed to properly consider the relevant parameters for determining alimony, such as the financial status and needs of the parties (!) .
The trial court's reasoning for awarding the alimony amount was primarily based on its own discretion and the financial status of the parties, without detailed reasoning or consideration of established criteria (!) (!) .
The appellate court found that the reasoning was inadequate and that the trial court did not sufficiently analyze the factors relevant to alimony determination, such as the standard of living, financial capacity, and needs of the respondent and her daughter (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the objective of alimony is to prevent destitution and ensure fair maintenance, considering factors like the parties' status, needs, income, and standard of living, rather than as a punishment (!) (!) .
The appellate court noted that the trial court's decision lacked proper reasoning and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the alimony amount, allowing the trial court to consider oral and documentary evidence (!) (!) .
The remand is to be completed within four months from the receipt of the order, and the appellate court directed the trial court to re-evaluate the alimony amount based on appropriate criteria (!) (!) .
The case underscores the importance of a comprehensive and justified evaluation of all relevant factors when awarding permanent alimony, rather than relying solely on judicial discretion or vague reasoning (!) .
If you need further analysis or specific legal advice, please let me know.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2023 (decree signed on 23.02.2023) passed in Original Suit No. 113 of 2018, by Sri Amitesh Lal, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the respondent herein for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant has been allowed and the respondent has further been directed to make payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the appellant as well as to her daughter.
3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred in this order as per their status before the learned trial court.
4. The petitioner (respondent herein) had filed a suit under Section 13 (1A) and (1B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which, it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent (appellant herein) on 23.05.2014 in accordance with Hindu rituals and customs. The petitioner has made several allegations against the respondent which according to him constituted mental cruelty as well as desertion.
5. The respondent on being noticed, had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations levelled against her has been denied.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication of the suit.
I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
II. Whether the petitioner has a valid cause of action?
III. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty?
IV. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuously period of not less than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition?
V. Whether the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent?
VI. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce?
VII. To what other relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled to?
7. The petitioner had examined himself as well as two other witnesses while the respondent had adduced four witnesses on her behalf including herself.
8. Vide judgment dated 15.02.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 113 of 2018, the suit preferred by petitioner was decreed and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved with a further direction to the petitioner to make payment of alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondent as well as to her daughter.
9. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2023 passed in Original Suit No. 113 of 2018, the respondent has preferred the present appeal.
10. At the outset, Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (appellant herein) has submitted that he is confining his prayer only with respect to the grant of permanent alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondent and her daughter primarily on account of the fact that the parameters to be considered for grant of permanent alimony has not at all been considered by the learned trial court and in fact there appears to be no justifiable reasons for the learned trial court to come to a conclusion with respect to grant of permanent alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondent and her daughter.
11. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent herein) has submitted that the petitioner is an unemployed person and considering the said fact an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been awarded which the petitioner was all along ready and willing to extend to the respondent.
12. In view of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and since the prayer made in this appeal has been confined only with respect to the grant of permanent alimony t
The court emphasized the necessity of considering financial status and reasonable needs when determining permanent alimony, referencing established criteria from prior judgments.
Permanent alimony decisions must be based on a comprehensive analysis of financial circumstances, marriage duration, and standards of living, not merely awarded without justified reasoning.
The court upheld the divorce as mutual consent was reflected in prolonged separation, emphasizing the need for permanent alimony considering the parties' financial circumstances.
(1) Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under Hindu Marriage Act, but it is a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(1a) of ....
The court established that allegations of cruelty must be substantiated with evidence, and the absence of such evidence can lead to the dismissal of divorce petitions.
Prolonged separation over 20 years establishes irretrievable breakdown (dead wood marriage), warranting divorce; permanent alimony of Rs.50 lakhs fixed balancing husband's finances and wife's/daughte....
The wide scope of section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 enables the court to award maintenance at the time of passing any decree, ensuring financial support for a dependent spouse.
Mental cruelty justifies divorce; unilateral refusal of cohabitation and long-term separation erode marital obligations under Hindu Marriage Act.
Divorce is granted based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and permanent alimony is awarded factoring in the financial capacities of the parties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
