Rubul Boruah vs Ruptrishna Dutta
2024 Latest Caselaw 8630 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Rubul Boruah vs Ruptrishna Dutta on 25 November, 2024

                                                                         Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010241352024




                                                                  undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : Mat.App./45/2024

            RUBUL BORUAH
            S/O LATE BISHESWAR BORUAH, RESIDENT OF NRL TOWNSHIP QUARTER
            NO. 15 KAJARI, PO NRL TOWNSHIP, DIST GOLAGHAT, ASSAM 785699

            VERSUS

            RUPTRISHNA DUTTA
            D/O SHRI CHANDRA KUMAR DUTTA,
            RESIDENT OF JORHAT GAYAN GAON, SARUCHARAI MOUZA, DIST
            JORHAT

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M GOGOI, MR. S BANIKYA,MR. N DEKA

Advocate for the Respondent : ,


                                   BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
                                   ORDER

25.11.2024

Heard Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. In this appeal, under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, the appellant has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment dated 22.10.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Jorhat, in Misc. (J) Case No. 32/2017, arising out of Title Suit (M) No. 34/2015.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment dated 22.10.2024, the learned District Judge, Jorhat has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.

Page No.# 2/3

20,00,000/-, being the permanent alimony, to the respondent and also directed the employer of the appellant to deduct a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the salary of the appellant and to deposit the same in the account of the respondent in every month.

4. Perused the memo of appeal as well as the grounds mentioned therein and also perused the judgment dated 22.10.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Jorhat, in Misc. (J) Case No. 32/2017, arising out of Title Suit (M) No. 34/2015.

5. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the quantum so awarded by the learned trial court is exorbitant and the formula so adopted for calculating the amount is also strange, and the learned trial court had adopted the formula so laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, which is generally applied in determining the quantum of compensation in Motor Accident Claim cases under Motor Vehicles Act. Mr. Deka also submits that the present salary of the appellant is only Rs. 1,36,000/- per month and as such, he is not in a position to pay the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month to the respondent as directed by the learned trial court, as he also has the burden of looking after his second wife and minor child. Therefore, Mr. Deka has contented to interfere with the impugned judgment so passed by the learned District Judge, Jorhat.

6. The submission of Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant needs further consideration.

7. Admit.

8. Let notice be issued to the respondent, within a week from today, returnable in 4 weeks, by registered post with A/D as well as by usual process.

9. The Registry shall call for the record from the learned trial court.

Page No.# 3/3

10. List the matter after 4 (four) weeks.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant