Telangana High Court
V K Kovuru , K Vamshee Krishna, Ranga ... vs K Abhilasha, Hyderabad on 25 June, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos.266 and 300 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) These are two appeals which have been filed by either of the spouses. For convenience they will henceforth be referred to as husband and wife.
2. Family Court Appeal No.266 of 2015 is an appeal preferred by the wife and Family Court Appeal No.300 of 2015 is an appeal preferred by the husband. Both these appeals have been filed assailing the order dated 13.06.2015 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad (for short, the 'Family Court') in O.P.No.1541 of 2013.
3. The impugned judgment dated 13.06.2015 is one which has been passed on a petition filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the 'Act of 1955') seeking dissolution of the marriage between the husband and wife that took place on 09.04.2010 and also seeking for permanent alimony of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. Vide the impugned judgment, the Family Court allowed the petition by dissolving the marriage between the husband Page 2 of 8 and wife dated 09.04.2010 both on the ground of cruelty and desertion and at the same time granted a permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/- with Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the petition to be paid within three months.
4. It is this judgment and decree which is under challenge in both these appeals.
5. Heard Ms. K. Abhilasha, party-in-person in Family Court Appeal No.266 of 2015 and Mr. M.V. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the husband in Family Court Appeal No.300 of 2015.
6. When the matters were taken up for hearing, the appellants in both the appeals make a statement that both of them are not questioning the first part of the order so far as allowing of the petition and dissolving the marriage between the two. However, the wife's appeal is on the awarding of Rs.50,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and the husband's appeal is contending that in fact no strong case for grant of alimony has been made out at all and therefore the impugned judgment needs to be sustained only so far as the dissolution of marriage is concerned without awarding any alimony.
Page 3 of 8
7. As far as the first appeal i.e. Family Court Appeal No.266 of 2015 is concerned, it was contended by the wife that the Family Court failed to duly appreciate the status, the financial position, the luxurious standard of living and wealth and properties that the husband and his family members enjoy and possess and in a mechanical manner has reached to the conclusion of the wife being entitled a permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/-. In support of her contentions, the wife drew the attention of this Bench to the various documents that she had brought on record. Highlighting the expenditure statement of the husband, the bank statement of the husband and the amount of money which was transferred from one account to the other family members, according to the wife by itself would reflect the paying capacity of the husband. In addition, the wife also produced the encumbrance certificate to show the properties that were there in the family of the husband. Based upon all these documents and strongly relying upon them, the wife prayed for enhancement of the alimony amount from Rs.50,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,00,000/-. In fact, the wife in the course of her deliberations also said that the said claim of alimony was made in an O.P. that was filed as early as in the year 2013 and now with the efflux of time Page 4 of 8 of more than a decade, the wife should be awarded even more alimony than what has been claimed by her in the claim petition.
8. As regards the other appeal i.e. Family Court Appeal No.300 of 2015 filed by the husband questioning awarding of Rs.50,00,000/- towards permanent alimony is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the husband strongly contended that the order/ judgment dated 13.06.2015 to the extent of awarding Rs.50,00,000/- as permanent alimony is highly irrational. According to the learned counsel appearing for the husband, a bare perusal of the impugned order would reveal that except for the operative paragraph i.e. paragraph No.8 of the impugned judgment where there is one-line order of granting permanent alimony, there is no discussion whatsoever on the part of the Family Court justifying awarding of permanent alimony.
9. It was also the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the husband that the impugned judgment is per se bad for the reason that the Family Court has not provided any reasons for arriving at the said conclusion of granting of permanent alimony, that too, to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-. It was the further contention that there is no basis whatsoever on the basis of which Family Court Page 5 of 8 has arrived at the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. In fact, the learned counsel for the husband contended that it was brought before the notice of the Family Court that meanwhile the husband had lost his employment and had no source of income left. Rather he had reached the state of bankrupt which again has not been properly appreciated by the Family Court and has erroneously granted an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and prayed for setting aside of the same. In the alternative, it was also argued by the learned counsel for the husband that since there is no justification, reasons and basis given by the Family Court, the High Court may consider remanding the matter for fresh adjudication only so far as awarding of the alimony is concerned or to decide as to what would be the suitable amount of permanent alimony. In the process the parties would also get a chance to produce fresh documentary proof in respect of their respective claims.
10. Having heard the contentions put forth by the two appellants, the admitted factual matrix are that the two appellants got married on 09.04.2010 and in fact in a short period of time itself the marital relationship went into rough feathers and there were host of allegations and counter allegations made on either side. There were Page 6 of 8 also a series of litigations between the two which had crept up in between and some of which have also travelled up till the stage of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Meanwhile, in the year 2013, O.P.No.1541 of 2013 was filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955 seeking for dissolution of the marriage and for grant of permanent alimony of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. It is this petition which stood allowed and is under challenge in these two appeals.
11. The Family Court has allowed the petition so far as dissolution of the marriage is concerned. As far as the permanent alimony is concerned, though there was a claim of Rs.2,00,00,000/-, the Family Court awarded an alimony of Rs.50,00,000/-. The impugned judgment is an ex-parte judgment so far as the husband is concerned, as could be seen, in spite of proper service upon the husband where the service was effected through the consulate with an acknowledgement also received from the consulate, the husband chose not to contest the case and left it to be decided ex-parte.
12. Undisputedly, the husband is working in United States of America. He has done his graduation in engineering in United States of America and thereafter has got an employment there and is relatively well placed as would be evident from the documents Page 7 of 8 brought on record. The fact that in spite of proper service upon the husband he chose not to contest the case forces this Bench to draw a strong inference that somewhere deep in the mind he too was wanting the relief of dissolution of marriage to be awarded and in the process if he was to pay certain amount of money towards permanent alimony it was though not pleaded and contested, appears to have been acceptable to him. Similarly, as regards the case of the wife seeking for permanent alimony, though she referred to series of documents brought on record in the present appeals. But on a query being put to her, she candidly accepted the fact that these documents were one which she could obtain only much after the impugned judgment has been passed by the Family Court. There is also an admission on her part that these documents have not been marked before the Family Court. In the absence of which the finding arrived at by the Family Court awarding a permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/- cannot under any circumstances be termed to be on the lower side, inappropriate or without proper appreciation of the materials on record.
13. Now considering the claim for enhancement of the amount from Rs.50,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,00,000/-, even taking into Page 8 of 8 consideration the documents that have been brought on record, though they have not been marked or produced before the Family Court but it also is not sufficient enough to establish that the husband has a paying capacity of Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards permanent alimony or for that matter the wife having made out a strong case for awarding of Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards permanent alimony.
14. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that both the appeals are devoid of merits calling for an interference either for enhancement of the alimony amount or for that matter quashing of alimony amount.
15. The two appeals therefore deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J ___________________________ SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J Date: 25.06.2024 GSD