Arun Raj @ Arun Raj Gupta, s/o Shivlal Gupta, R/o Village Sattipara, PO & v. Manju Gupta, d/o Basant Prasad, R/o Village Mahuadanr, PO & PS Mahuadanr, District Latehar
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F. A. No. 250 of 2023 --- Arun Raj @ Arun Raj Gupta, s/o Shivlal Gupta, R/o Village Sattipara, PO & PS Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) … … Appellant Versus Manju Gupta, d/o Basant Prasad, R/o Village Mahuadanr, PO & PS Mahuadanr, District Latehar at present W/o Rajesh Kumar, R/o MDA IC Bhavan, Mango, Security Service, Old Purliya Road, Near Jamshedpur, District West Singhbhum … … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant --- : M/s. Sajid Yunus & For the Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. T. N. Jha, Advocate Navin Kr. Singh, Advocate --- 6/21.08.2024 Heard Md. Sajid Yunus, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T. N. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Latehar in connection with Maintenance Alteration Case No. 1 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the appellant under Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act for rescinding the order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Latehar in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2009 has been rescinded from 01.06.2023. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the application preferred by the respondent herein under Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, an order was passed on 26.02.2010 in which an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was allowed towards permanent alimony to the respondent as well as an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as monthly maintenance subject to change in circumstances of either party like remarriage of the respondent etc. It has been submitted that an appeal was preferred being M. A. No. 107 of 2010 against the said order, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 23.06.2022 with certain observations therein. It has been submitted that thereafter an -2- application was preferred by the appellant under Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act for rescinding the order dated 26.02.2010 and the learned trial court on 01.06.2023 has directed for monthly maintenance to be paid by the appellant from 26.02.2010 to 31.05.2023 which according to the learned counsel for the appellant is an error of record as admittedly the respondent has already remarried on 07.07.2011. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore, submits that the appellant is willing to pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- which is the balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as Rs. 1,00,000/- has already been extended to the respondent as well as monthly maintenance from 26.02.2010 till 07.07.2011 within a period of two months. 4. Mr. T. N. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order dated 01.06.2023 while submitting that in Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the appellant, it has been clearly indicated that the amount of monthly maintenance has to be paid till the date of adjudication by the court concerned. It has further been submitted that there is no error in the impugned order dated 01.06.2023 and the present First Appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant and the respondents were husband and wife and after dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce on 05.03.2009 in Matrimonial Case No. 2 of 2008, an application under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act was preferred by the respondent for grant of permanent alimony to her. The said case was registered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 2009 and an order was passed on 26.02.2010 by the learned District Judge, Latehar in which a permanent alimony of Rs. 2,50,000/- was awarded to the respondent and the monthly maintenance was fixed at the rate of 5,000/- per month which was subject to change in circumstances of either parties like remarriage or securing any job etc. This order was challenged by the appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 107 of 2010 and on the prayer of the appellant, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 23.06.2022 with a liberty to the appellant to file an application, if so advised under Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the concerned court and if the same is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits after giving adequate -3- opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. It was also directed therein that the appellant shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the respondent less any amount paid by him and he was also directed to pay to the respondent a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- till the claim of the appellant, if any to be filed claiming that the respondent has remarried is adjudicated by the court concerned. Subsequently, the appellant had preferred an application under Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act which was disposed of on 01.06.2023 and which is order impugned to the present appeal. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent has remarried on 07.07.2011. In view of the changed circumstances and also subsequent developments, the order dated 26.02.2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2009 will automatically come into play as the amount of monthly maintenance is subject to the changed circumstances of either of the parties. 7. In view of the changed circumstances i.e., the remarriage of the respondent on 07.07.2011, she by no stretch of imagination can claim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month till 31.05.2023 as per findings in the impugned order which seems to have been passed oblivious to the specific direction made by the learned District Judge, Latehar on 26.02.2010 in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2009. So far as the claim of the learned counsel for the respondent that the amount of maintenance shall be paid till the date of adjudication by the court concerned as observed in the order dated 23.06.2022 passed in M. A. No. 107 of 2010 is concerned, the same is a frivolous submission, as nothing has been stated in the said order and it has only been mentioned that the maintenance amount shall be paid till the matter is adjudicated by the court concerned. It can therefore be concluded that the appellant is liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month from 26.02.2010 till 07.07.2011 which is the date of remarriage of the respondent apart from the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- which is the balance amount of the permanent alimony of Rs. 2,50,000/- as awarded by the learned District Judge, Latehar in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2009 vide order dated 26.02.2010 as permanent alimony. -4- 8. Mr. Yunus, learned counsel for the appellant at this juncture has reiterated that the balance amount of maintenance as well as the balance amount of permanent alimony shall be extended to the respondent within a period of two months from today. 9. We on account of the discussions made hereinabove, set aside the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Latehar in Maintenance Alteration Case No. 1 of 2023 directing the appellant to make payment of the balance amount of permanent alimony as well as balance amount of monthly maintenance in terms of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Latehar in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2009 dated 26.02.2010 by 31.10.2024. 10. Since it has been submitted that distress warrant has already been issued for realization of the maintenance amount, the same shall be kept in abeyance till 31.10.2024. 11.
Decision
This appeal stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) R Shekhar Cp 2