Vinny Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar

Judgment

1. In these appeals filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 filed by both the parties the following order is under challenge:- :2: ". . The Petition is allowed. The marriage solemnized between the parties on 6th December, 1995 is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. . Petitioner/Parmvir Parmar shall pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the Respondent/Vinny Parmar. . He shall pay the same from the date of this order i.e. from 31st July, 2004 onwards. . . No order as to costs. A decree be drawn accordingly." So far as the decree of divorce is concerned, allowed Civil Application No. 75 2009 decree divorce originally granted Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act, a 1955 (for Act) substituted

2. :3: decree divorce consent Section 13-B Act. The parties dissolved marriage consent a decree divorce consent directed issued them. Hence, question remains adjudicated appeals amount permanent alimony granted Section 25 Act. The appellant FCA No. 110 2004 referred as the appellant and the appellant in FCA No. 127 of 2004 shall be referred to as respondent.

3. As per the appellant, the amount of Rs.20,000/- directed Family Court inadequate having regard monthly income respondent estimated Rs.2 lakhs, received beyond Rs.50,000/- permanent alimony. As Family Court properly considered financial status respondent her, financial conditions, namely, unemployed entitled a comfortable remarried. Whereas, respondent entitled permanent alimony gainfully employed :4: guilty suppressing employment throughout. It alleged resignation service 31/1/2004 a camouflage managed. He alleges professionally qualified capable earning handsome income a fashion designer a Mumbai Delhi. He further states amount Rs.20,000/- consideration professional income appellant capacity more. claims having regard capability He employment fashion design

requires spend. Lastly, claims permanent alimony dismissed solely ground misled suppressing her employment and this was a deliberate and design act on her part.

4. In the impugned order itself, the Family Court recorded displeasure against account statements application interim maintenance 23/7/2002, regarding financial status. However, :5: Family Court reject permanent alimony Section 25 Act proceeded consider financial status parties. It husband salary allowances Air India wife was employed Airhostess Cathay Pacific Airlines married December, 2001 onwards Rs.2 working Retail Manager M/s.J.J. Vallaya Group earning a monthly salary Rs.20,000/-. The Family Court consideration savings, if any, and fixed the amount of Rs.20,000/- per month by way of permanent alimony.

5. Mr. Mirajkar the learned counsel for the appellant submitted admitted monthly income respondent, amount Rs.20,000/- permanent alimony inadequate grossly disproportionate monthly salary respondent,

2004. As 25% 30% monthly income respondent appropriate amount permanent alimony. accounting 2001-2002 income For :6: respondent-husband Rs.24,34,370/- amount Rs.8,10,001/- income. For assessment 2002-2003 income Rs.22,24,856/- income Rs.6,39,293/-. For assessment 2003-2004 income Rs.34,50,700/- income Rs.10,59,671/-. These figures income income reflected returns submitted Form No.3 placed record. After deducting the tax, the net income for the three assessment years would be as under:- Sr.No. -----

3. Assessment Year --------------- 2001 - 2002 2002 - 2003 2003 - 2004 Net Income ---------- Rs.16,24,369/- Rs.15,95,563/- Rs.23,91,029/-

6. The learned counsel for the respondent has Family Court justified granting amount permanent alimony :7: dismissed grounds, namely, (a) appellant guilty suppressing employment status deliberately (b) employed sufficient earnings maintain herself, financially dependent father sister. addition, pointed though In application interim maintenance, pressed Family Court interim maintenance her. As future cannot qualifications accepted appellant Fashion Design remain without income. On contrary, a Mumbai Delhi professional assignments a handsome salary. He pointed marriage dissolved consent, accepted appellant income support cannot Mumbai herself, a comfortable life. He pointed appellant a B.Com. degree completed diploma course fashion design, admitted. He pointed appellant suppressed employment December, 2001 M/s. J.J. Vallaya Group :8: confronted cross-examination private detective service agency’s report connected documents. He pointed M.A. No. 261 2002 initiate perjury proceeding against appellant pending before Family Court. The appellant relied decision of Komalam Amma vs. Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai & ors. [2008 [2008 [2008 AIR AIR AIR SCW SCW SCW 7799], 7799] 7799] whereas decisions respondent placed reliance S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) LRs. vs. Jagannath (dead) LRs [(1994) [(1994) [(1994) 1 1 1 SCCSCCSCC 1] 1] and Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala and anr. 1] stayed a period :16: today, subject condition respondent shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance as granted by the Family Court. K. Deshpande) (Ravi K. Deshpande) (Ravi K. Deshpande) (Ravi Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H.