Rupali Roy, now aged about 38 years, Wife of Ujjwal Kumar Roy and daughter v. Ujjawal Kumar Roy, now aged about 40 years, Son of Bijjan Kumar Roy, by
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 11 of 2022 ----- Rupali Roy, now aged about 38 years, Wife of Ujjwal Kumar Roy and daughter of Gunadhar Roy, resident of No. 2, Sun View Park, Mahishila Colony, Asansol, P.O. Asansol, P.S. Asansol, District-Paschim Burdwan, West Bengal. ……….Respondent/Appellant Versus Ujjawal Kumar Roy, now aged about 40 years, Son of Bijjan Kumar Roy, by occupation Para Teacher, Resident of village-Sahana, P.O. and P.S. Jamtara, District-Jamtara, Jharkhand. ……Petitioner/Respondent --------
Legal Reasoning
Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. S.K. Laik, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate -------- ------- 14/4.9.2024 Heard the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 10th 2. January, 2022 (decree signed on 21.01.2022) passed in Original Suit No. 66 of 20- 19 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Jamtara whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the petitioner (respondent herein) for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (appellant herein) has been allowed and a permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,000/- has been awarded to the appellant herein. 3. the appellant is aggrieved only with respect to the grant of permanent alimony to Mr. S.K. Laik, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that her as according to her the same is a meagre amount. It has been submitted by Mr. Laik, learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant has a child with her and though she works as a Para Teacher but most of the times she is sick as a result of which she has difficulty even in managing the domestic chores. It has been submitted that the guidelines as enumerated in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. reported in 2021 2 SCC 324 has not been considered by the learned trial court while arriving at a permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the permanent alimony being on the lower side without taking into consideration the financial status of the parties, the fact that the appellant has a child with her and other necessary factors, that part of the impugned judgment dated 10.1.2022 deserves to be set aside. 4. that the respondent is also a Para Teacher and has a meagre income and therefore the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which has been awarded in favour of the appellant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted -2- We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also has been correctly arrived at by the learned trial court and therefore the same needs no interference. 5. perused the impugned judgement dated 10.1.2022. 6. marriage under section 13(1)(1A)(ii), (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Initially the suit was preferred by the respondent herein for dissolution of issues were framed and evidence were led and ultimately vide the impugned judgment the suit was decreed on contest and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved. In the impugned judgement dated 10.1.2022, it appears that by way of permanent alimony, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded to the appellant herein to be extended within a period of three months from the date of the judgement. The son of the appellant and the respondent who is aged about 11 years has been ordered to be placed under the care and guardianship of the appellant for his better education, health and care and the respondent herein will have visitation rights once in a month. 7. the impugned judgement dated 10.1.2022 with respect to the permanent alimony, Since the learned counsel for the appellant has confined his challenge to ,which has been granted to the appellant and which according to him is on the meagre side, we on a perusal of the judgement under appeal have come to a conclusion that the factors for determining the payment of permanent alimony has not at all been considered by the learned trial court while arriving at such finding. In this context, reference is made to the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra) wherein with respect to permanent alimony, the following factors are necessary to be taken into consideration, which reads as under:- “73. Parties may lead oral and documentary evidence with respect to income, expenditure, standard of living, etc. before the court concerned, for fixing the permanent alimony payable to the spouse. 74. In contemporary society, where several marriages do not last for a reasonable length of time, it may be inequitable to direct the contesting spouse to pay permanent alimony to the applicant for the rest of her life. The duration of the marriage would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for determining the permanent alimony to be paid. 75. Provision for grant of reasonable expenses for the marriage of children must be made at the time of determining permanent alimony, where the custody is with the wife. The expenses would be determined by taking into account the financial position of the husband and the customs of the family. 76. If there are any trust funds”. -3- The learned trial court therefore should have considered the various factors 8. which necessitate the grant of permanent alimony prior to arriving at a conclusion of grant of Rs.3,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the appellant. The factors having not been taken into consideration by the learned trial court, we, therefore, set aside that part of the judgement dated 10.1.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara in Original Suit No. 66 of 2019 by which the permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,000/- has been awarded to the appellant and remand the matter back to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara for passing a fresh order so far as the grant of permanent alimony is concerned by taking into consideration the various factors which guide grant of a permanent alimony as enunciated in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra). While passing a fresh order, the learned trial court shall take evidence both oral and documentary, if necessary, and thereafter arrive at a conclusive finding with respect to the quantum of permanent alimony to be awarded in favour of the appellant. 9. from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a period of three months
Decision
This appeal stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J) Rakesh/-