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. : I.A.(Civil)/3553/2024
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
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. M GOGOI
Advocate for : appearing for RUPTRISHNA DUTTA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
25.11.2024
Heard Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant.
2. This interlocutory application, under Order XLI Rule 5 of the C.P.C. is
preferred by the applicant, for staying the operation of the impugned judgment
dated 22.10.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Jorhat, in Misc. (J) Case
Page No.# 2/3
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.
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. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that since the
salary being received by the appellant is Rs. 1,36,000/- only, 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. Mr. Deka further submits that connected appeal has already been
admitted and the record has been called for and that while determining the
quantum of alimony the learned trial court had adopted a formula being followed in
determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Mr. Deka also submits
that he will deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, before the Registry of this court and
therefore, it is contended to stay the operation of the impugned judgment so
passed by the learned trial court.
5. Having considered the submission of Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record,
this court is prima-facie of the view that there exist grounds for interfering with the
impugned judgment so passed by the learned trial court.
6. Accordingly, it is provided that till disposal of the connected appeal, i.e. MAT
Appeal No. 45/2024, operation of impugned 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, stands stayed, subject, however, depositing a sum of
Page No.# 3/3
Rs. 7,00,000/- before the Registry of this court, within a period of 10 (ten) days
from today.
7. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
