Allahabad High Court
Ambalika vs Sushil Kumar Pandey on 19 July, 2023
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh, Vinod Diwakar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143245-DB
Court No. - 39
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 920 of 2019
Appellant :- Ambalika
Respondent :- Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Sushil Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sushil Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia in Divorce Petition No. 471 of 2019 (Sushil Kumar Pandey Vs. Ambalika.
3. The parties were married as per Hindu Law on 01.7.2009. The respondent is working as a Constable in the Civil Police. In the petition seeking divorce filed by the respondent, he set up the ground available under Section 13(1)(i) read with (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thus, it was the plea set up by the respondent that after solemnization of the marriage between the parties, appellant voluntarily cohabited with one Phool Chand Yadav and that those parties had executed a notarized document dated 13.6.2011, setting up the plea of marriage. The said Phool Chand Yadav was done to death in the year 2012 giving rise to F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 51 of 2012 under Section 302, 201 IPC. In that, present appellant alongwith her parents were made accused persons. They faced criminal trial. Though, the appellant was acquitted, her parents were convicted under Section 302 IPC. In view of the fact that Phool Chand Yadav was dead, he was not made party to the divorce proceedings filed by the respondent. In such circumstance, before the learned court below, it was proven that the appellant had executed notarized document dated 13.6.2011 proclaiming her marriage with Phool Chand Yadav. The original document and its contents and the signature of the appellant appended thereto, were proved. Those were not disputed by the appellant.
4. That document having been proved, prima facie, basis arose to establish existence of ground available under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act. The special facts, that may have been in the knowledge of the appellant, were neither pleaded nor proven before the learned court below. Then, it being proven that the present appellant who was married to the respondent, from before, had proclaimed marriage with a third party i.e. Phool Chand Yadav, during subsistence of her marriage with the respondent, ground of cruelty also stood established. In absence of any contrary facts disclosed, learned court below granted the decree of divorce and awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lakh to the appellant.
5. In the present appeal proceeding, no challenge has been pressed to the decree of divorce granted by the learned court below. The solitary ground pressed before us is that the amount of permanent alimony awarded is too less.
6. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, we find no good ground to interfere with the award of permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lakh. No objective basis or justification has been shown as may allow the Court to interfere in the quantification of the permanent alimony.
7. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.7.2023
Faraz
(Vinod Diwakar, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)
