Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 788
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
VINOD PRASAD AND K.R. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Pranati Rout – Appellant
Versus
Bijaya Rout - Respondent
MATA NO. 154 OF 2014
Decided On : 03-11-2016
For the Appellant : M/s. Amit Pr. Bose, N. Hota, S.S. Routray, Mrs. V. Kar & D.J. Sahoo
For the Respondent: M/s. Dhanjaya Mund, R.K. Acharya, S.N. Padhee& P.K. Behera
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the entitlement of permanent alimony to the wife based on the income of the husband and the guidelines in case law.
Headnote:
Family Court’s Act - Appeal under Section 19 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - [Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955] - The court allowed the petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the husband dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce, but did not grant any permanent alimony to the wife-appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty, while the wife denied the assertions and filed for dismissal of the civil proceeding.
Finding of the Court:
The court dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce, but did not pass any order with regard to permanent alimony to the wife.
Issues: Whether the respondent tortured the petitioner with cruelty and deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years? To what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondent did not torture the petitioner with cruelty and desert him without cause, but still granted the divorce. The court also determined the entitlement of permanent alimony to the wife based on the income of the husband and the guidelines in case law.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part with the modification that the appellant-wife shall be paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards permanent alimony within a period of four months in two equal installments.
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 filed by the appellant-wife, namely, Pranati Rout assailing the judgment and order dated 20.9.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapada in C.P. No. 102 of 2013 filed by the husband-respondent, namely, Bijaya Rout under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. Learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapada although allowed the petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the husband dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce, but did not grant any permanent alimony to the wife-appellant.
3. Without being verbose, the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that marriage between the parties to this appeal was solemnized on 17.6.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is the contention of the husband (respondent herein) that only 15 days after the marriage, matrimonial discord arose between the husband and wife, when the wife insisted upon the husband to live separately in a rented house away from his matrimonial home, but the husband did not agree to the same. As a result, the wife left her in-laws house without informing either her husband or her parents-in-law. With much persuasion of the husband, although she came back to matrimonial home, as usual, continued her mis-behaviour with the husband and her in-laws and did not show any interest to perform the household chores. Lastly, on 24.10.2009, she left her matrimonial home without knowledge and consent of her husband or parents-in-law with all her ornaments and other valuables. All attempts by the husband and his family members were futile to bring her back. She also lodged an F.I.R. falsely implicating her husband and his family members, which has been registered as G.R. Case No. 340 of 2010 and is pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapada. She also filed a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapada. Thus, finding no other alternative to lead a peaceful marital life, the husband filed divorce proceeding on the ground of desertion and cruelty.
4. The wife (appellant herein) filed her objection denying the assertions made in the petition under Section 13 of the Act. The wife admitting the date of marriage contended that at the time of marriage, Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the husband towards dowry. He was also given Rs.40,000/- in cash to purchase a motor-cycle. Six months after the marriage, the husband and his family members demanded a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- for purchase of fridge. Due to poor financial condition of her father, the same could not be paid for which the wife was subjected to physical and mental torture. She was not provided with two morsels a day. When the torture became unbearable, the wife left her matrimonial home. Although her father had tried his best to settle the matter, but it could not materialize. Thus, she was left with only option to leave her matrimonial home on 18.4.2010. She also lodged an F.I.R. against her in-laws family on 19.4.2010, which has been registered as G.R. Case No. 340 of 2010. Looking at the pitiable condition of her parents, she filed Cr. P. No. 352 of 2013 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapada, which is pending adjudication. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the civil proceeding.
5. Taking into consideration the rival pleadings of the parties, learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapada framed following two issues for adjudication of the civil proceeding:
1. Whether the respondent Pranati Rout after marriage tortured the petitioner Bijaya Rout with cruelty and deserted for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
2. To what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
6. In support of their respective cases, the husband (respondent here
