Bombay High Court
Sau. Padmini W/O Rahul Wasnik vs Rahul S/O. Late Pandhari Wasnik on 10 February, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
210 fca 73-2016.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2016
Sau Padmini w/o Rahul Wasnik,
Aged about 28 yrs. Occ.- Household
R/o- Subhank Boudh Vihar in front of
Qr.No.118/A Saddak No.20 Zone no.BMY
Charoda Dist. Durg (CG). .... APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
Rahul s/o late Pandhari Wasnik,
Aged about - 37 years, Occ.- Service,
R/o- Railway Station Road,
Bhandewadi, Pardi, Nagpur. .... RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri. B.W. Patil, Advocate for appellant.
None for respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : 10 FEBRUARY, 2021.
JUDGMENT: [PER: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.]
The challenge raised in this Family Court Appeal is to
the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur dated 17/03/2016 in
Petition No.C-07 of 2012.
210 fca 73-2016.odt
2. By the present appeal, the appellant who had filed
proceedings under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had
prayed for grant of permanent alimony. The Family Court has
granted an amount of Rs.4,32,000/- towards permanent alimony in
default respondent has been directed to pay sum of Rs.2500/- per
month from 01/01/2012. The appellant not being satisfied with the
quantum of permanent alimony has filed the present appeal.
3. Shri B.W. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that considering the fact that the respondent was duly
employed and receiving salary of Rs.35,000/- per month, the
appellant was entitled to higher amount of permanent alimony. He
referred to the evidence on record to indicate that the respondent
was well settled in life and that he could afford to pay high amount
of permanent alimony to the appellant. On the contrary after
separation appellant was living with her brother and was dependent
on him. It was thus submitted that considering the facts of the case
and the earnings of the respondent the higher amount of permanent
alimony is liable to be granted to the appellant.
210 fca 73-2016.odt
4. On 09/02/2021 the learned counsel for the respondent
was absent and hence the appeal was kept today for granting him an
opportunity. Today also there is no appearance on behalf of the
respondent. In the light of the contentions of the learned counsel for
the appellant the following point raises for adjudication:
"Whether the appellant has proved that she is entitled to
higher amount of permanent alimony?"
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and we have also perused the records of the case. It is not in dispute
that the parties were married on 09/07/2007 and shortly thereafter
by the judgment dated 03/02/2012 the marital ties were severed.
The appellant for the purpose of claiming permanent alimony
pleaded that after the separation she was staying with her brother in
the premises of temple. She was unable to maintain herself while on
the contrary the respondent was employed as a clerk with the
Municipal Corporation. He was getting salary of Rs.35,000/- per
month. Nothing much could be extracted in her cross-examination.
The respondent in his cross-examination admitted that he was
receiving gross salary of more than Rs.35,000/- per month. Details
210 fca 73-2016.odt
of some other properties owned by him were also brought on
record.
6. The learned Judge of the Family Court after considering
the entire evidence on record found that the appellant was entitled
to be granted permanent alimony and thereafter proceeded to
determine the same by taking into account the figure of Rs.2000/-
per month for a period of 18 years. Considering the nature of
evidence on record including the fact that the respondent was
having permanent employment and receiving salary of Rs.35,000/-
per month coupled with the fact that the appellant was entitled to
be granted permanent alimony in the light of the standard of living
of the respondent, we find that the amount of permanent alimony
can be slightly enhanced by calculating the same at Rs.2500/- per
month. Thus for a period of eighteen years the same would come to
Rs.5,40,000/- which the amount of permanent alimony would serve
the interests of justice. The point as framed is answered accordingly.
7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment of
the Family Court is partly modified. It is held that the appellant is
entitled to receive permanent alimony of Rs.5,40,000/-. This
210 fca 73-2016.odt
amount be paid to the appellant within a period of four months
from today. In default the respondent would be liable to pay
permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month from
01/01/2012 till remarriage of the appellant. The Family Court
Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear
their own costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
R.S. Sahare
