Gauhati High Court
Shri Shankar Talukdar vs Smti Rinku Talukdar on 17 August, 2021
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010236052018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Mat.App./15/2019
SHRI SHANKAR TALUKDAR
S/O LATE PUROSHATTAM DAS TALUKDAR, R/O HOUSE NO. 16, JATIA,
ASHOK PATH, KAHILIPARA,P.S.DISPUR, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M),
ASSAM.
VERSUS
SMTI RINKU TALUKDAR
D/O G.N. TALUKDAR, W/O SHANKAR, TALUKDAR, R/O HOUSE NO. 11,
BANK COLONY, CHANDRA CHAUDHURI PATH, BHETAPARA, GUWAHATI,
DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A K BHUYAN
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral)
Date : 17-08-2021
(Suman Shyam, J)
Heard Mr. N. C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have
also heard Ms. N. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondent.
Page No.# 2/6
2. This appeal has been preferred by the husband assailing the order dated
10.07.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup(M) at
Guwahati in Misc.(J) Case No.65/2018 registered on the basis of an application filed
by the respondent (wife) under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying
for permanent alimony. It would be pertinent to note herein that by the order dated
07.05.2018 passed by the learned Family Court in F.C.(Civil) No.594/2016, the marriage
between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by granting a decree of
divorce on mutual consent. Upon dissolution of their marriage, the only question that
remained unresolved was pertaining to the quantum of permanent alimony payable
to the wife. By the impugned order dated 10.07.2018, the learned court below, after
going through the materials available on record, had held that the appellant
(husband) would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) as
permanent alimony to the respondent (wife). Aggrieved by such direction issued by
the learned court below, the present appeal has been filed.
3. We find that while admitting the appeal, this Court had passed an interim
order dated 04.12.2019 directing the appellant to pay 50% of the amount of
permanent alimony to his wife i.e. a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs). We
are informed that the said amount has already been paid by the appellant to the
respondent.
4. By referring to the impugned order dated 10.07.2018 Mr. Das submits that the
impugned order is based only on the one sided projection made by the respondent
(wife) in as much as the learned court below has not considered the case of the
Page No.# 3/6
appellant, more particularly the expenditure incurred by him on regular basis out of
his earnings. On such count, submits Mr. Das, the amount of Rs.30 Lakhs granted as
permanent alimony is exorbitant and deserves to be reduced. The learned counsel
for the appellant has, however, made it clear that he is assailing the impugned order
on the basis of findings recorded therein based on materials available before the
Court at the relevant point of time and does not in any manner intend to bring any
subsequent development pertaining to the appellant's employment on record so as
to assail the order.
5. Refuting such arguments, Ms. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the
respondent, submits that the appellant did not file any objection nor did he bring any
facts to the notice of the learned court so as to justify his argument. The learned
counsel further submits that the respondent is a young lady aged about 39 years and
has her entire life to be lived with the assistance of permanent alimony. She also
submits that the appellant is working as Systems Manager in WIPRO and therefore,
has the requisite means to pay the balance amount of permanent alimony to the
respondent, without any further delay. On such ground, Ms. Choudhury submits that
the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both
the sides and have also carefully gone through the materials available on record.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that when the decree of divorce was
passed by the learned Family Court dissolving the marriage between the appellant
and the respondent, the appellant was serving as MS in Information Security at
Page No.# 4/6
Paladian, Qatar and earning salary in Qatari Rial. His monthly salary at that time
converted in India currency, was in excess of Rs.2,33,744/-. Taking note of such facts
and figures, the learned Family Court had observed as follows :-
"In this case the opposite party is serving as MS in Information Security at
Paladian, Qatar. From the above it reveals that the monthly salary of the
opposite party is Rs.2,33,744/- as per Indian Currency in the year 2016.
However, as per the salary slip of the opposite party of December 2015, the net
pay received by the opposite party is 10,252/- Qatari Rial which is equivalent to
approximately Rs.1,87,611/-. So the salary of the opposite party is Rs.1,87,611/-
as per Indian Currency (1QAR=Rs.18.3/-) in December, 20156. By this time his
salary must have increased. On the other hand the petitioner has no source of
income. In this case the opposite party is serving as MS in Information Security
at Paladian, Qatar whereas the petitioner has no source of income."
On the basis of the aforesaid observation, direction to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Lakhs) as permanent alimony was issued.
8. Mr. Das submits that in the written statement filed on behalf of his client in F.C.
(Civil) No.594/2016, the appellant had given a detailed break-up of both his earnings
and expenditure by indicating that his total monthly expenditure was to the tune of
12,274 QAR. However, the said aspect of the matter has been totally ignored by the
learned court below while passing the impugned order.
9. On a closer scrutiny of the materials on record, we find that the appellant did
not file any written objection in Misc.(J) Case No.65/2018. The written statement relied
upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was actually filed in the divorce
proceeding which was disposed of before passing the order dated 21.05.2018.
Page No.# 5/6
Therefore, although Mr. Das has submitted that his client had relied upon the written
statement filed in the divorce case, we are unable to accept such submission since
after the disposal of the divorce case, it would not be permissible for the court to rely
upon the pleadings available on record of that case so as to decide the issues arising
in subsequent proceeding. If that be so, it is evident that there was no material
brought on record by the appellant before the learned court below pertaining to his
monthly expenditure. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the
impugned order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the learned court below.
10. Having held as above, we have also noticed that around that time, the
appellant had lost his job in Qatar and subsequently shifted to India. Although he is
presently employed but his salary calculated in INR is less than what he was drawing
at the time when the decree of divorce was passed. The said fact is borne out from
the affidavit filed by the parties in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & another passed in Crl. Appeal No.730/2020
arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9503/2018. It has also been brought to the notice of this
Court that the appellant has an old ailing mother living with him and he has to take
care of her medical treatment, which at times, entails substantial expenditure. Such
assertion of the appellant has not been disputed by the respondent.
11. On an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case and for
ends of justice, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Lakhs) as permanent alimony to be paid to the respondent would be just and
sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, accordingly, modify the
Page No.# 6/6
impugned order dated 10.07.2018 and direct the appellant to pay the balance
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) within a period of six months from the
date of this order, if need be, in two equated instalments. We also make it clear that if
the amount is not paid within the timeframe, as indicated herein above, the unpaid
amount would carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum with effect from expiry of six months
from today, till such time, the entire amount is paid by the appellant to the
respondent. We also make it clear that the appellant would deposit the amount in
the Bank Account of the respondent, the particulars of which would be furnished by
Ms. N. Choudhury to Mr. Das within a week from today. If for any reason the appellant
fails to comply with this order, it would be open for the respondent to bring it to the
notice of this Court by filing appropriate application.
12. In view of the order passed today in the present proceeding Ms. N. Choudhury
submits that she would ensure that her client withdraws the Maintenance Case
bearing No.F.C.(Crl.) Case No.358/2016 instituted against the appellant in the Family
Court No.1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, within two weeks from today.
With the above observation, this appeal stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
