The court affirmed the obligation of the husband to provide permanent alimony, emphasizing the need for credible evidence to support claims of financial incapacity.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

This appeal is filed by the respondent directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Family Court'), in M.C.No.428/2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.

3. The petitioner-wife filed the petition under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty and harassment.

4. The respondent denied the allegations made against him and against his parents. He admitted his relationship with the petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner had an extra-marital relationship with another person and when this was objected to, she fabricated the story of cruelty and harassment. There were no justifiable grounds for the petitioner to seek for a divorce and he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. The Family Court held the trial and recorded the evidence of both the parties. The petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and she marked Exs.P1 to P19. The respondent examined three witnesses as RW-1 to Rw-3 and marked Exs.R1 to R7. The Family Court after hearing both the parties framed the following points for consideration:

i) Does petitioner proves that the respondent has treated her with cruelty?

ii) If a decree is to be passed whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent alimony and if so quantum thereof?

iii) What order?

6. The Family Court has discussed materials available on record, answered the above point No.1- In the affirmative, point No.2 -Partly in the affirmative and allowed the petition in part. The Family Court by the impugned order granted a decree of divorce and also directed the respondent to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/-. Respondent-husband being aggrieved by the award of permanent alimony has filed this appeal.

7. Notice was served on the respondent, but she remained unrepresented.

8. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and anxiously perused the records.

9. This appeal is concerned only with the award of permanent alimony. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider point No.1 decided by the Family Court. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the petitioner has been working as a software technician at TCS. She has an independent source of income. On the contrary, the respondent - husband has left his job in the UK and is presently residing in his native place at Wayanad, Kerala. He has no source of income to pay such a substantial amount as permanent alimony. The Family Court did not consider these facts and has erroneously awarded permanent alimony. Therefore, it was prayed to set aside the said orders.

10. PW-1 in her evidence has consistently stated that after marriage, as directed by the respondent and his parents, she left her job and continued her education in UK. In her cross-examination, the fact that she left her job has not been disputed by the respondent. To appreciate said contentions, it is necessary to extract relevant portion of cross examination of PW-1 i.e. at paragraph No.6, page No.23, which reads as under:

"It is true that after marriage till date I have not employed anywhere. It is not true to suggest that I come from a financially sound family. I am seeking permanent alimony of Rs.1 crore since I quit the job/my employment at the instance of the respondent and in-laws. For my future maintenance with a status of the respondent which he promised by this marriage and for the loss and for my sufferings. It is not true to suggest that I have voluntar