IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA th ON THE 7 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 FIRST APPEAL No. 145 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

KULDEEP RAI S/O SHRI RAMGOPAL JI RAI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE SERVICE A 5/10 KSHIPRA VIHAR BANK OF INDIA KE PAAS DEWAS ROAD DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (SHRI MUKESH RAV JADHAV, ADVOCATE)

AND SMT. RITA W/O KULDEEP RAI D/O LATE RADHESHYAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD F- 15 KAVAR COLONY GURJAR HOSPITAL KE PAAS BADWAH DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (SHRI SHYAM DHAR SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)

This appeal coming on for order this day, Justice Devnarayan Mishra passed the following:

JUDGEMENT

This first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant/husband, being partially aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain in RCSHM No.512/2018, by which u/S 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, appellant/husband has been directed to pay Rs.4.00 lacs to the Signature Not Verified respondent/wife as a permanent alimony.

2. In nutshell, the case of the appellant/husband before the Trial Court was that the respondent/wife is his legal wedded wife and their marriage was solemnized on 05.07.2011, as per Hindu Rites and Rituals in Ujjain city. The respondent resided with the appellant for certain days and after that, she was making quarrel and on the ground of cruelty and desertion, appellant has filed a petition u/S 13 of the HMA for dissolution of marriage.

3. The respondent/wife has admitted the matrimonial relations but denied that she has treated her husband with cruelty or deserted her husband and pleaded that due to ill treatment of her husband, she is residing at her parents house.

4. After framing the issues, learned Family Court after trial passed the impugned judgement and decree by which marriage of the parties was dissolved and the appellant was directed to pay his wife Rs.4.00 lacs as permanent alimony.

5. The appellant/husband has preferred this first appeal only on the part of the decree by which alimony has been granted in favour of the respondent/wife.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgement and decree passed by the Family Court is contrary to the provisions of law. Learned Trial Court has not rightly appreciated the facts and law. The respondent/wife has not filed any application u/S 25 of the HMA and has not demanded permanent alimony and inspite of that, learned Trial Court has granted the said relief.

7. Further argued that from perusal of the record of the Trial Court, it is clear that the respondent/wife is owner of the agricultural land. The respondent Signature Not Verified has not filed any documents regarding income of the appellant or that appellant has any movable or immovable property. Appellant was employed in a private job and he has no regular source of income. He is handicapped and his mother is also dependent upon him. Appellant is not in a position to pay the maintenance to the respondent and lastly argued that maintaining the decree of dissolution of marriage, the decree regarding payment of permanent alimony be quashed.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court and has stated that learned Principal Judge, Family Court has not committed any illegality and the appellant want to deny his legal and pious liability to maintain his wife. No formal application is required hence, the appeal be dismissed.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court.

10. It is an admitted fact that in this case, the respondent has not filed any application u/S 25 of the HMA before the Trial Court for permanent alimony and it is also clear from the record that learned Trial Court has not framed any issue in respect of that.

11. We have also gone thro