SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38102

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

M.F.A. NO.3324/2020 (SMA)

BETWEEN:

MRS. JOSEPHINE

W/O EDGAR RAJDAYAL ALLAN

AGE: 53 YEARS

OCC UNEMPLOYED

R/O NO.14, MAIGANDA DEVA

MUDALIAR ROAD, FRAZER TOWN

BENGALURU - 560 005.

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 43/2

CHRIST NIVAS, VENKATESHAPPA

LAYOUT, N BEERAPPA ROAD

M.S. NAGAR POST, KAMMANAHALLI

BANGALORE - 560 033.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI ASIM MALIK, ADV.)

AND:

MR. EDGAR RAJDAYAL ALLAN

S/O ALLAN P V

AGE: 52 YEARS

OCC PRIVATE R/O NO 14

MAIGANDA DEVA, MUDALIAR

ROAD, FRAZER TOWN

BENGALURU - 560 005. ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SHRIDHARA K., ADV.)

2

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 39 OF SMA,

READ WITH SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT,

1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE

THE

PART

OF

THE

DECREE

DATED

04.09.2019 IN M.C. NO.3508/2015 PASSED BY THIE LEARNED

PRL.

JUDGE,

FAMILY

COURT,

BANGALORE,

THEREBY

DISMISSING THE APPLICATION U/S 37 OF THE SPECIAL

MARRIAGE ACT, 1594 FILED BY THE APPELLANT SEEKING

PERMANENT ALIMONY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS

DAY,

VISHWAJITH

SHETTY

J.,

DELIVERED

FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed assailing the

judgment and decree dated 04.09.2019 passed by the

Principal

Judge,

Family

Court,

Bengaluru

in

M.C.No.3508/2015 wherein the Family Court had allowed

the petition filed by the respondent - husband under

Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954

(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1954") and the

marriage between the parties registered on 21.04.1993

before the Registrar of Marriages, Bengaluru and

subsequently, solemnized on 11.11.1994 at St.John's

Church, Bengaluru was dissolved by decree of divorce

and the application filed by the appellant - wife under

3

Section 37 of the Act of 1954 seeking permanent alimony

was also dismissed.

2.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing

for the parties and also perused the material available on

record.

3.

Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal as

revealed from the records are, the marriage of the

appellant with the respondent was registered before the

Registrar of Marriages, Bengaluru and subsequently,

solemnized

on

11.11.1994

at

St.John's

Church,

Bengaluru as per Christian rites and traditions. For short

period after marriage, the couple were living happily and

thereafter their relationship had strained and they were

quarrelling on petty issues. From the marriage, the

couple had no biological issues and therefore, they

adopted a girl child was named as Renae Nakshatra

Allan. Even thereafter, the relationship between the

parties did not improve and ultimately, the respondent -

husband had filed petition under Section 27(1)(d) of the

Act of 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage on the

ground of cruelty. The appellant - wife had entered

4

appearance in the said proceedings and filed detailed

statement of objections denying the petition averments

and also contended that the respondent was addicted to

alcohol and he used to treat her indifferently and never

allowed her to mingle with any of his relatives and child.

To substantiate his case, the respondent - husband had

examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 39

documents and on the other hand, the appellant - wife

examined herself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to R9.

After completion of evidence, the appellant - wife had

filed I.A.No.V under Section 37 of the Act of 1954 with a

prayer for awarding Rs.3 crores as permanent alimony.

The Family Court vide the impugned judgment and

decree had allowed the petition filed by the respondent -

husband and had dismissed the application - I.A.No.V

filed by the appellant - wife. Being aggrieved by the

impugned judgment and decree in so far as it relates to

rejection of the application-I.A.No.V filed under Section

37 of the Act of 1954 , the appellant - wife has preferred

this appeal.

5

4.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the Family Court was not justified in dismissing the

application -I.A.No.V filed by the appellant - wife under

Section 37 of the Act of 1954. He further submits that

since the learned Judge has dissolved the marriage by

decree of divorce, he ought to have granted permanent

alimony to the appellant - wife as sought.

5.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent has argued in support of the impugned

judgment and decree and submits considering the

evidence on record, the learned Judge has rightly

dismissed the application filed under Section 37 of the

Act of 1954 by the appellant - wife and the same does

not calls for any interference.

6.

The material on record would go to show that

the couple have no biological issue from the marriage

and they had adopted a girl child who was named as

Renae Nakshatra Allan and she is aged about 19 years at

present and adm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top