On 23rd September 2020, the High Court Of Orissa in the case of Swapna Rani Sahoo V. Niranjan Sahoo comprising of two-Judge Bench of Shri Justice S. K. Mishra & Shri Justice B. P. Routray held that the quantum of permanent alimony should be computed by considering the factual aspects of each case.
Factual Background
The marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and customs and out of their wedlock, one female child born. It is alleged that the appellant-wife after some days of marriage showed her indifferent attitude towards the family members of the respondent and was reluctant to take care of the old ailing parents of the respondent. She also assaulted the old parents-in-law physically. the appellant without informing the respondent and his family members went to her parental house along with the minor child and did not return for a long time. When the respondent attempted to bring her back, he was misbehaved by the parents of the appellant and there was a meeting to settle the dispute by the local gentries, which ultimately failed. Thus, it was alleged that the appellant without any rhyme or reason voluntarily deserted the respondent and subjected cruelty to him.
The learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in the impugned judgment and decree allowed the prayer for divorce by passing a decree thereof dissolving the marriage from the date of the decree, but no permanent alimony was granted and direction for making provision for residence, maintenance, and medical expenses of the appellant and the minor child was passed.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the impugned judgment is illegal and completely erroneous as there was no finding by the learned Judge to the effect that marriage has been irretrievably broken down or any established cruelty is there against the husband. It is contended that the learned Judge has traveled beyond the pleadings of the parties to make out a case in favor of the respondent to grant a decree of divorce. It is further contended that the learned Judge, Family Court was misconceived not to grant any permanent alimony in favor of the appellant and her minor daughter.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent
It is submitted by the respondent that after passing the impugned decree, he remarried which is beyond the appeal period and before the presentation of the appeal by the wife-appellant.
Court Analysis
The learned Judge, Family Court has erred in not granting permanent alimony specifically. Such infirmities and errors do though make the decree of divorce liable to set aside, but we are not inclined to set aside the decree of divorce in view of the fact that the respondent has remarried. Under the circumstances, we are certainly inclined to grant permanent alimony in favour of the appellant which in our view would solve the purpose substantially.
The court noted that the quantum of permanent alimony is to be computed by considering the factual aspects in the present case. Considering the income of the husband and age of the parties, and other relevant factors that the appellant is staying in her in-law's house and the respondent is bearing the educational expenses of the minor daughter, and other circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it would be appropriate to fix an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. Apart from this, the respondent is also liable to provide shelter to the appellant during her lifetime so also the educational and marriage expenses and other expenses of the daughter till her marriage.
Judgment
It was ordered that the decree of divorce between the parties is confirmed and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the appellant towards permanent alimony. The respondent is further directed to continue to provide residential accommodation to the wife during her lifetime and he shall bear all the expenses of the minor daughter including her educational and marriage expenses and other expenses. The appeal was disposed of with aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment and decree.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
