Rupali Mahanty … v. Subhashish Sannigrahi
Case Details
First Appeal No. 116 of 2022 with First Appeal No. 131 of 2022 Against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2022 and 26.09.2022 respectively passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 76 of 2018. (In First Appeal No. 116 of 2022): --- Rupali Mahanty … … Appellant Versus Subhashish Sannigrahi … … Respondent (In First Appeal No. 131 of 2022): Subhashish Sannigrahi … … Appellant Versus Rupali Mahanty … … Respondent --- For the Appellant For the Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mrs. Rupali Mahanty, in person : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate --- Present: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- C.A.V. on – 03.08.2023 Pronounced on – 16.05.2024 Per, R. Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Smt. Rupali Mahanty, appearing in person as appellant in F. A. No. 116 of 2022 and as respondent in F. A. No. 131 of 2022 and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in F. A. No. 116 of 2022 and the appellant in F. A. No. 131 of 2022. 2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment,
Decision
the same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The appellant in First Appeal No. 116 of 2022 is aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 21.09.2022 (decree signed on 26.09.2022) passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 76 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the respondent herein has been ordered to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- apart from the already paid amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the petitioner as permanent alimony and for future maintenance in two installments within three months from the date of the judgment. 4. The appellant in F. A. No. 131 of 2022 is aggrieved by the same order and is primarily concerned with the order of Rs. 10,00,000/- which is to be paid by him to the respondent in the said First Appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in both these appeals as per their status before the learned court below. 6. Briefly stated the facts reveals that the petitioner (appellant in F. A. No. 116 of 2022) had instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage with the respondent (respondent in F. A. No. 116 of 2022) being Original Suit No. 76 of 2018 on the ground of cruelty in terms of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 7. The petitioner had taken various grounds in support of her case seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty in which after notice, the respondent had appeared and filed his written statement in which such allegations had been denied. 8. Based on the averments made by the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the respondent (husband) committed subjected to cruelty against the petitioner (wife) after marriage and whether the petitioner (wife) is entitled to get a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955” (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for? 9. The petitioner in support of her case had examined two witnesses including herself and the respondent had examined three witnesses on his behalf. Several documents were also exhibited. 2 10. By virtue of the judgment dated 22.12.2020, the suit preferred by the petitioner was decreed and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved. In the said order, an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was awarded as permanent alimony to the petitioner. 11. Being aggrieved with the grant of permanent alimony of Rs. 25,00,000/- which according to the petitioner was meagre, the judgment dated 22.12.2020 passed in Original Suit No. 76 of 2018 was challenged before this court in F. A. No. 15 of 2021 and vide order dated 24.03.2022, the same was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned Family Court, Bokaro with the permission to the parties to file further affidavits in addition to the material already brought on record. 12. Subsequent to the same, the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2022 was passed in Original Suit No. 76 of 2018 in which apart from the award of Rs. 25,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the petitioner which the petitioner has already received, the respondent was further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioner. Both the parties are aggrieved with the quantum of permanent alimony awarded to the petitioner as according to the petitioner, the amount is too meagre while according to the respondent, he has already paid an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- as permanent alimony and considering his income, an order of Rs. 10,00,000/- as further alimony is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. 13. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal preferred by the respondent – husband is not maintainable. It has been submitted that the petitioner has to bear medical expenses on a regular basis and an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- as permanent alimony is too meagre for the petitioner to maintain herself. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that the respondent – husband has several assets in his possession including a bunglow in Darjeeling and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- as permanent alimony and Rs. 50,000 as litigation cost. It has also been submitted that the respondent does not have any liability and his financial statement reveals several high value investments. The gross 3 salary of the respondent is Rs. 2,16,019/- per month and the respondent has also one duplex bunglow in Darjeeling whose value is not less than one crore. Apart from the said assets, the petitioner has a HIG flat at Kolkata which is valued at more than Rs. 60,00,000/- and he has also inherited huge landed properties. The respondent also has an accumulation of Rs. One crore in his provident fund. The petitioner in person has submitted that at the time of hearing with respect to the permanent alimony after remand, the case has been given an altogether new dimension to the effect that the respondent had remarried and has a one years old daughter which should not have been a hindrance for the learned court below to have enhanced the permanent alimony by only Rs. 10,00,000/-. It has further been submitted that the mother of the respondent earns family pension from the government of West Bengal and his elder brother has a chartered accountancy firm at Patna whose branch offices are situated at Patna, Ranchi and Delhi. The petitioner in person in the backdrop of her assertion regarding the income of the respondent has submitted that she is unemployed and she has no independent source of income except an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month apart from Rs. 25,00,000/- paid by the respondent to her towards permanent alimony. The interest which is generated from the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- is not even sufficient for making payment of house rent. The petitioner in person has stated that the learned trial court had not considered these aspects of the matter and had merely enhanced the permanent alimony by Rs. 10,00,000/- which is too meagre with which it is impossible for the petitioner to have a proper standard of living. 14. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – husband has denied such assertion and has submitted that the petitioner has suppressed her financial status though, in the affidavit filed by the respondent all evidences have been brought on record regarding his financial status. It has been submitted that there were no justifiable reasons for the learned trial court to have enhanced the amount of permanent alimony from Rs. 25,00,000/- to Rs. 35,00,000/- and whatever was the basis for awarding the amount of permanent alimony of Rs. 25,00,000/- was already in existence before the learned 4 trial court when the matter was being reconsidered after remand. According to Mr. Singh, the impugned judgment is perverse as no material has come to the fore for the learned trial court to enhance the amount of permanent alimony and in fact the impugned order seems to be a review of the order passed by the learned trial court which is not legally permissible. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been showered with cash and jewelleries during the period of 20 years when the marriage between them subsisted and for the period of 23 months from the year 2019 to 2020, the respondent was regularly paying an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the petitioner. Mr. Singh has also submitted that the respondent has solemnized another marriage after getting divorce from the petitioner and out of the said wed-lock, a child has also been born and the present wife of the respondent is unemployed. It has been stated that the respondent is to superannuate shortly and he is to have sufficient savings so as to maintain his wife as well as bring up his infant daughter. Reference has also been made to the case of “Gautam Mahanty Vs. Jayashree Mahanty” in First Appeal No. 52 of 2007 wherein in similar circumstances an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was awarded to the wife as permanent alimony. The petitioner herself has an income of Rs. 35,000/- per month from her deposits in the bank as per the record of the assessment year 2019-20 and in addition to the interest she receives on the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- which was paid to her by the respondent. 15. We have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respective counsels and have also perused the lower court records. 16. As we have noted above, the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that in the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2022, the alimony of Rs. 35,00,000/- which has been granted to the petitioner is a meagre amount and the same on the basis of the income and assets of the respondent should be enhanced to Rs. 70,00,000/- while the respondent – husband has his own case to the effect that though Rs. 25,00,000/- as permanent alimony has already been extended to the petitioner, but so far as the further amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- is concerned, the same is not based on 5 proper appreciation of evidence and therefore, that part of the order according to the respondent should be set aside. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner – wife is a working lady, rather as per her own submission, she does not have any independent source of income and she stays with her father at Bokaro. The petitioner has highlighted about certain assets which have purportedly been in possession of the respondent including a duplex bunglow in Darjeeling and a HIG flat in Kolkata, but the prices assessed of the said assets have been denied by the respondent. In fact, in the cross-examination of the respondent he has admitted about having a duplex bunglow in Darjeeling which costs about 25 to 30 lacs. In the cross-examination of the respondent, he has also stated that his gross salary is Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and his net salary is Rs. 60,000 to 70,000/- per month. He has also certain other grievance which have been mentioned which are with respect to the petitioner taking all the household articles and shifting the same to Bokaro for which the various consignments have been brought on record. Both the affidavits filed by the petitioner and the respondent pursuant to the order of remand in F. A. No. 15 of 2021 though have been taken note of, but no findings seem to have been recorded with respect to the claim of either of the parties. In fact, the learned trial court seems to have passed the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2022 awarding a further amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as permanent alimony apart from the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- which were granted earlier and which has already been paid by the respondent to the petitioner without properly discussing the affidavits filed by either of the parties though, the various aspects of the case as well as the averments made in the affidavit have been noted. 17. The Original Suit No. 76 of 2018 was remanded back by this court in F. A. No. 15 of 2021, to be reconsidered by the learned trial court and the parties were permitted to file further affidavits in addition to the materials already available on record. Though, the affidavits have been filed, but as stated above, the findings with respect to grant of permanent alimony does not resonate in the impugned judgment. We in view of the aforesaid findings therefore set aside the impugned judgment dated 6 21.09.2022 passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 76 of 2018 and remand the matter back to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro to consider the issue afresh and pass a speaking and reasoned order expeditiously by considering the materials available on record. The learned trial court in the context of arriving at specific findings based on appropriate reasonings may consider the further materials if any brought on record by the parties. 18. 19. Consequently, both the First Appeals are disposed of. Pending I.As, if any, is also closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 16th day of May, 2024 R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3 7