The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No.221 of 2023 ------ Krishna Kumar, resident of Road No.8, Jagannathpur, P.O. & P.S. Gamharia, District Seraikella-Kharsawan. ----- Appellant Versus 1. Manisha Sharma, resident of 2 RF/22, Babuline, Near Noamundi Tata Steel Hospital, P.O. & P.S. Noamundi, District West Singhbhum. 2. Rahul Sharma, R/o C/o Ramesh Chandra Goswami, T-3, F-8, H-1, New Town Kolkata, P.O. and P.S. New Town Kolkata, ----- Respondents District Kolkata. ------ CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellant For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Advocate ------- Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J. 12/27.11.2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against that part of the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2023 (decree signed on 23.05.2023) passed by Sri Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa in Original Suit No. 11 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been directed to make payment of Rs.50 Lacs as permanent alimony to the respondent no.1 within a period of one year. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. 4. The petitioner/husband (appellant herein) had filed a Suit under Section 13(1)(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife (respondent herein). The petitioner in his application had highlighted various grounds/instances in order to bolster his 2 claim that he has been subjected to cruelty at the hands of the respondent no.1 and that the respondent no.1 was living in adultery with the respondent no.2 herein and other persons. 5. The respondent no.1 on being noticed, had appeared and filed a written statement/reply in which the allegations leveled by the petitioner have been sought to be controverted. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed for adjudication :- (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ? (ii) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit or not ? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i) & (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act on the basis of adultery and cruelty committed by the respondent no.1 ? (iv) Whether the petitioner Krishna Kumar committed subjected to physical and mental cruelty to his wife Manisha Sharma by manufactured/morphed pictures of Manisha Sharma with several persons with the help of Amit Pandit and circulated it among colleague ? (v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for ? 7. The petitioner had examined three witnesses while the respondents had examined two witnesses in support of their respective cases. 8. Learned trial court vide judgment dated 15.05.2023 had allowed the Suit and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 stood dissolved on the basis of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.50 Lacs as one time alimony to the respondent no.1 within one year without fail. 3 9. Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of grant of one time alimony of Rs.50 Lacs as the same was passed without taking into consideration the various factors which guide grant of permanent alimony and without there being any separate application for grant of such alimony as envisaged in Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been submitted that the evidence of the petitioner as P.W.1 is the only criteria which has been considered by the learned trial court while granting one time alimony. In support of his contention learned counsel has referred to the case of Rajnesh Vrs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. 10. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife has submitted that apart from the admission on the part of the petitioner, the learned trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the respondent no.1 had lost her job due to the allegation and counter allegation on 3.6.2022 and that due to such circumstances, the respondent no.1 is living in penury having no source of income to sustain herself. It has been submitted that the predominant consideration for grant of permanent alimony has already been made by the learned trial court and therefore the same does not necessitate any interference. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 12. The reasoning which precede the grant of one time alimony of Rs.50 Lacs are quoted hereunder :- “The learned amicus appearing on behalf of petitioner contended that if divorce is granted then a huge one time alimony should be given to respondent no.1 as the petitioner has accepted himself in para-72 of his cross- examination that his average monthly income/salary is Rs.3,00,000/- - 4,00,000/- per month. The learned amicus further argued that due to false allegation of petitioner, the respondent no.1 lost her job and presently, 4 she is unemployed and having no source of income. It is the legal duty of the husband to pay one time alimony to his wife as per his status and economical capacity. The learned amicus for the petitioner contended that the respondent no.1 does not deserve one time alimony as she has voluntarily withdrawn herself from the society of her husband and voluntarily leading marital life separately since long. On facts and the reappraisal of cumulative circumstances mentioned above, the court is of the finding that the respondent no.1 got job in the year 2009, but due to allegation and counter-allegation raised by both parties against each other, the Tata Company removed Manisha from service since 03.06.2022. Presently, Sharma respondent no.1 is unemployed and having no source of income. She was fully dependent upon her husband who is economically sound. The petitioner has only responsibility to look after of his son and the expenses incurred on his son is approximately Rs. 10,000-20,000/- per month and the petitioner had/has much money so that he is capable to pay one time alimony to his wife.” 13. What would suffice is that the learned trial court has considered the admission in the cross-examination of the petitioner that he earns an amount of Rs.3,00,000-4,00,000/- per month and the respondent being unemployed having lost her job on 03.06.2022. The evidence of the petitioner, more particularly para-72 of the same has been perused from which it appears that the basis is six months of work and the income may change as stated by the petitioner. 14. held as follows:— In the case of Rajnesh Vrs. Neha (supra) it has been “77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. 78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is 5 educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. 79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant- wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications. test factors. The 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between for determination of all relevant maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should 6 neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.” 15. The various factors which govern to grant of permanent alimony has not been considered by the learned trial court and arriving at a finding regarding grant of one time alimony to the tune of Rs.50 Lacs is not in accordance with law. 16. We therefore on the basis of the discussions made herein, set aside that part of the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.05.2023 (decree signed on 23.05.2023) passed by Sri Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa in Original Suit No. 11 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has ordered grant of one time alimony of Rs.50 Lacs by the petitioner to the respondent no.1 within one year and remand the matter back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order on the issue of one time alimony by considering the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vrs. Neha (supra). The learned trial court while coming to a conclusion shall endeavour to take further evidence: oral and documentary and shall make efforts to decide the said issue within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 17. This appeal is allowed to the extent noted above. 18. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Shamim/- (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)