Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Seema Sahu @ Keerti vs Deepak Kumar Sahu on 19 June, 2024
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 69 of 2019
1 - Smt. Seema Sahu @ Keerti D/o Shri Lallaji Sahu, R/o Chandmari
Dipripara, Azaad Nagar, Ganjapara, Ward No. 37, Durg, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh. Current Address C/o Principal Government College,
Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant
Versus
1 - Deepak Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Roshanlal Sahu, R/o School Square,
Chowk Danitola, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District :
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Hon'ble Mrs. Jutice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
(19h June, 2024)
1) This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 09.09.2019 passed by
the learned Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G) in Civil Suit No.7-A/2018
whereby the learned Family Court has granted the decree of divorce to
the husband u/s 13(1)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the
ground of desertion. The wife has preferred this appeal.
2) The order sheet of this Court dated 09.05.2023 records the fact that the
wife has stated in her statement that she does not contest the decree of
divorce except the grant of alimony. Therefore, in order to assess the
income of the parties, they were directed to file an affidavit in view of the
norms laid down by the Supreme Court regarding disclosure of assets
and income of the parties in case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and
another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. Subsequently, the wife has
filed the affidavit. The husband has not filed any affidavit. As per the
appellant wife, she was working as an Assistant Professor on
contractual basis and was earning Rs.21,500/- and she has to take care
of her minor daughter Ku. Chaitanya, aged about 15 years, who was
born out of the wedlock. It is further submitted that the expenses being
incurred on account of dependent is Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000/- per
month. She ha further stated that Rs.2000/- per month has been
awarded as maintenance towards daughter Chaitanya in Domestic
Violence Ancillary Proceeding which was later enhanced to Rs.3000/- on
08.02.2019 by the JMFC. The wife has further stated that the
maintenance amount of her daughter for the last 8 months amounting to
Rs.24000/- still remains unpaid. She has further stated in her affidavit
that the expenses being incurred towards the daughter is Rs.10,000 to
15,000/- per month.
3) The husband on the contrary has not filed any documents to asses the
income and his affidavit states that he has not gainfully employed
anywhere and he has no permanent source of income. The affidavit
further states that his father Roshanlal Sahu owns certain property, and
a will has been executed by his father to the effect that the property
owned by him is the self acquired property and his children and the
present appellant have no right over the said property. Except this fact,
nothing has been stated.
4) Prima facie, looking to the cryptic affidavit which does not fulfill the
requirement of criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh
Versus Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 in respect of disclosure of assets and
income, we feel that all efforts have been made by the respondent
husband to deviate the norms of disclosure of assets in the affidavit.
The document which has been filed to dislodge the claim over the
property also shows the modus operandi and this Court is not satisfied
with the said disclosure. It points out that efforts have been made to
suppress the details of income/assets. No document is placed on
record to show as to whether he is suffering from any ailment or facing
any other problem and how he is surviving.
5) Considering the fact that the appellant is responsible to look after the
daughter and for her upbringing and providing education, we deem it
appropriate to direct him to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- in addition to
the amount which has already been granted by the JMFC. Accordingly,
the respondent shall pay Rs.15,000/- per month toward maintenance of
his daughter in addition to the amount already granted.
6) In respect of decree of divorce, the wife has stated that she did not want
to contest the same. Consequently, the decree of divorce shall remain
as it is.
7) This appeal is disposed of with the above direction. Accordingly, a
decree be drawn.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
Rao
