High Court · 2012

Whereas the above appeal, witnesses a challenge to the judgment and orde r dated 13.03.2009 passed in F.C. Civil No.198/2006 declining the decree of diss olution of marriage as prayed for by the appellant, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked to nullify the order dated 16.09.201 1 passed in MC No. 535/2009 arising out of F.C(Crl.) No.35/2004 enhancing the am ount of monthly maintenance for the minor daughter of the parties from Rs.600/- to Rs.3000/-. Both these orders incidentally have been passed by the learned Fam ily Court, Kamrup, Guwahati.

2. We have heard Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Senior counsel for the appellant a nd Mr. M Choudhury, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. We have heard a s well Mrs. R Boro Bora, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party.

3. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, these proceedings h ave been analogously heard and the present adjudication would finally dispose of the same.

4. The facts in bare essential necessary for the adjudication in hand are t hat the parties were married as per Hindu rites on 22.09.2002 and the girl child born out of the wedlock is presently aged 9 years and is a student of Class II of St. Mary ’s H.S. School, Guwahati. According to the appellant, who had initia ted the proceeding for divorce in the learned Court below, the respondent demons trated adulterous conduct, so much so, that on more than one occasion, she had t o be retrieved from places beyond the matrimonial home. He alleged that having r aised objection thereto, the respondent on 16.04.2003 left the matrimonial home with all house hold articles and started residing in the house of her elder brot her and refused to return inspite of his request. That the child was born on 29. 08.2003 and that a case for maintenance was instituted by her and registered as F.C(Crl.) No.35/2004 was also pleaded before the learned Court below. While cont ending that as ordered in the above maintenance case he had been paying Rs.600/- per month as maintenance to the child, the appellant pleaded desertion by the r espondent and prayed for dissolution of marriage.

5. The respondent wife contested the imputations stoutly denying the same. She pleaded that she is a casual Computer Teacher in a private school earning an amount of Rs.2500/- per month. She alleged that in the month of October, 2010 s he was beaten mercilessly by the appellant and driven out of the house threateni ng her not to return for which she was compelled to take shelter in the house of her elder brother. She alleged that after the birth of the child, though the ap pellant was informed, neither did he visit her nor did he bear the expenses in c onnection therewith. She, however, admitted the order of maintenance passed on h er application. She indicated as well that the relationship with the appellant h ad deteriorated to such an extent that it had crossed all limits of tolerance. The learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties fra med issues. The parties also examined themselves as well as their witnesses and at the conclusion of the trial by the judgment and order impugned in the above a ppeal, the petition of the appellant was dismissed. Meanwhile, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2005 passed by the l earned Principal Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in FC (Crl.) 35/2004 registered on her application under Section 125 Cr.PC., awarding the monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.600/- to the child, the respondent approached the Court in revision. The proceeding being registered as Crl. Rev. No.672/2005 was disposed of by order da ted 14.12.2007 and the matter was remitted to the learned Court below with the o bservation that the learned Court below had not properly considered the growing need of the child. A direction was issued to the learned Court below to review t he (cid:28)maintenance part of the impugned order (cid:29) after hearing both the parties. As t his order dated 14.12.2007 seemed to indicate that the same was in reference to the respondent wife, at her instance, necessary correction was made on 17.03.200 8 clarifying that the issue of maintenance pertained to the daughter of the part ies. It was thereafter that the order dated 16.09.2011 assailed in Crl. Rev. No. 33/2012 was passed by the learned Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati enhancing the a mount of monthly maintenance of the child from Rs.600/- to Rs.3000/-. In course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the parties on instr 6. uctions have apprised this Court that in view of the rival stands and their estr angement for nearly 9(nine) years as on date they are not reconciled to restore their matrimonial home and that the present controversy was limited to the amoun t of permanent alimony if any to be granted in case of dissolution of their marr iage as well as the maintenance for their child. 7. Having regard to the materials on record and the attempts made for their reconciliation at different levels, we are convinced that as on date a reunion of the parties is not feasible. Be that as it may, having regard to the grounds enumerated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be r eferred to as the ’Act’), on which the appeal has been preferred the materials o n record would have to be analysed and evaluated to reach the conclusion as to w hether any interference in the impugned judgment and order is warranted in the f acts and circumstances of the case.

8. We have carefully analysed the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced in support thereof and we are of the view that the allegation of adulte ry leveled against the respondent wife has remained un-proved.

9. Admittedly, however, the parties have lived separately on and from 29.08 .2003. Whereas, the respondent wife has contended that she was driven out of the matrimonial home by the appellant on that day by show of force, the latter has pleaded that she left the same (matrimonial home) on her own accord and even did not inform the respondent about the birth of the girl child and instead institu ted a case for maintenance.

10. It is evident from the averments made by the respondent wife in her plea dings as well as in the evidence that she does not intend to return to the matri monial home. In the above factual premises, on a totality of the consideration o f the pleaded facts and the evidence on record, we are of the view that the marr iage between the parties ought to be dissolved by a decree of divorce. We order accordingly. As a consequence of the decree, the aspects of permanent alimony as enum 11. erated under Section 125 of the Act as well as maintenance to the child would de mand immediate attention. In this regard, we have examined the pleadings availab le and have interacted in details with the learned counsel for the parties. It t ranspires from the records otherwise, that as on date the appellant who is a con stable with the Assam Police has a net monthly income of Rs.18,000/-. According to him, he has been paying Rs.3000/- per month in terms of the order dated 16.09 .2011 of the learned Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati and from the remaining amoun t maintains himself and two dependant un-married sisters. Though he has asserted that the respondent has a handsome income through her assignment as teacher in a private school and also private tuition, he has not been able to unimpeachably demonstrate the figure. No supporting document in corroboration thereof has als o been brought on record. That she is a teacher in a local private school on cas ual basis earning an amount of Rs.2500/- per month has been taken note of by the learned Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati while passing the order dated 16.09.2011 .

12. No overwhelming material to the contrary has been recited by him in the revision petition challenging this order. The respondent wife in her affidavit i n the Crl. Rev. No.33/2012, while reiterating her income to be Rs.2500/- per mon th has affirmed that the minor child is studying at St. Mary’s H.S. School, Guwa hati. The break up of the expenditure in connection of the child studies had bee n as hereinbelow: 1. 2. 3. Rs.14,840/- : : Rs.15,200/- Rs.4000/- per year Yearly fee Books School Dress : The Order dated 16.09.2011 would indicate that the enhancement of the mo 13. nthly maintenance allowance to Rs.600/- to Rs.3000/- is based principally on a c onsideration of these expenses as well as the rising cost of living index. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner have argued in unison t 14. hat having regard to the net income of the appellant and his family obligation, an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in all by way of permanent alimony and maintenance to the minor child would be adequate enough in law. According to the m, the quantum leap of the monthly maintenance allowance from Rs.600/- to Rs.300 0/- is wholly illogical and unwarranted besides being beyond the means of the ap pellant. This is more so, in view of the monthly income of the respondent throug h her teaching assignment and private tuitions they urged.

15. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, while reiterating that her (respondent) monthly income is roughly Rs.2500/- adhered to the pleaded aver ments in support of the enhancement of the monthly maintenance allowance of the minor daughter. In addition, on instructions, Mrs. Boro Bora has urged that havi ng regard to Section 25 of the Act, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- by way of permane nt alimony to the appellant be ordered to be paid in addition to monthly allowan ce of Rs.3000/- to the daughter till she is married.

16. We have extended our due consideration to the rival submissions. On bein g queried by us, the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that whereas the appellant is presently aged about 50 years the respondent is 40 years of ag e. Mr. Chaliha, at this juncture, has added that not only the amount sought for by the respondent is astronomical, having regard to the remaining tenure of his (appellant’s service) i.e. 10 years, the same ought not to be acceded to. Accord ing to him, the conduct of the respondent also does not entitle her to any perma nent alimony.

17. Considering the fact that the minor child is presently aged about 9(nine ) years she would reach her marriageable age roughly by 14/15 years hence. Even if the amount of monthly maintenance is reduced from 3000/- to 2000/-, which is minimum, according to us, in the present day context, the sum payable would be a round Rs.3,60,000/-. The respondent being aged about 40 years, measured by average life span of a lady in an Indian society, she is expected to live for the next 25-30 years . Admittedly the appellant has a net income of Rs.18,000/- from which he maintai ns himself and two un-married dependant sisters. Out of this income, he is also paying an amount of Rs.3000/- for the maintenance of the child. This amount of R s.18,000/- if taken to be his net monthly income, arithmetically he, in law, is obliged to apportion Rs.3000/- each for the respondent wife and the child. In th at view of the matter, considering the life span of the respondent, an amount of Rs.10,80,000/- would be required for a reasonably dignified sustenance. This, h owever, is without taking into account the phenomenon of rise in the cost of ess ential commodities.

18. In terms of Section 25 of the Act, while deciding the amount for permane nt alimony and maintenance, the Court has to take note amongst others of the inc ome of the parties, and the other resources at their disposal, their conduct and other circumstances and compute a figure which would appear appropriate and jus t.

19. On a cumulative consideration of all above, we are of the unhesitant opi nion, having regard to the mutual orientation of the parties that it would be in the interest of permanent resolution of their differences that the permanent al imony and the maintenance for the respondent wife and the child respectively to be ordered to be made by way of lump sum payment. Having regard to the calculati ons made hereinabove, on the basis of the materials on record and balancing the conveniences and in-conveniences of the parties, we are of the opinion that it w ould meet the ends of justice, if we direct payment of an amount of Rs.7,00,000/ - (Rupees Seven Lakhs) only as permanent alimony to the respondent wife and Rs.3 ,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) only as maintenance to the minor child.

20. The decisions rendered by this Court in Mat.Appeal No.23/2009 Ajit Kr. R oy Vs. Smt. Bharati Rani Roy and Mat Appeal No.4/2008 Madhab Ch. Das Vs. Smti Pr atibha Das strenuously relied upon on behalf of the appellant in our view does n ot advance his case. On a perusal of the texts of the judgment, we are of the vi ew that the facts reflected therein are distinguishable from those in hand. The appeal and the criminal revision petition thus stand disposed of in the above te rms.

21. od of 30(thirty) days herefrom. No costs. The amount as ordered by us would be paid by the appellant within a peri