Jharkhand High Court
Bhola Lal Srivastav vs Khushi Devi on 4 October, 2023
First Appeal No. 15 of 2020
---------
[Against that part of the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2019 (Decree
signed on 29.06.2019) passed by Sri Peeyush Kumar, learned Principal
Judge Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 262 of 2016]
---------
Bhola Lal Srivastav ... ... Appellant
Versus
Khushi Devi ... ... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : None
---------
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
13/04.10.2023 Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae
on behalf of the appellant. None appears on behalf of the
respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against that part of the
judgment and decree dated 21.06.2019 (Decree signed on
29.06.2019) passed by Sri Peeyush Kumar, learned Principal
Judge Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 262 of 2016,
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been directed to
make payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the
appellant.
3. The appellant had preferred a suit being Original
Suit No. 262 of 2016 u/s 13(1a), 13(1-b) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
4. The appellant in his plaint has stated that his
marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 03.10.2008
at Mahadeo Mandir Gomia as per Hindu rites and customs.
Out of the said wedlock two children were born to them. It
has been averred that after five years of the marriage there
was a perceptible change in the behavior of the respondent
which resulted in quarrelling without any reasonable cause,
inhuman behavior and abuses. In March, 2013 the
respondent with her guardians and without giving
information to the appellant had left her matrimonial house
leaving her children as well and she is since then staying at
her parental home. The appellant had on several occasions
made attempts and requests to the respondent to come back
to her matrimonial house but she had flatly refused and in
fact a threatening was given that the appellant will be
implicated in a false case. A Panchayati was held on
06.08.2014 in which also the respondent and her father had
refused to change their stance. It has been stated that the
respondent does not want resumption of conjugal life with
the appellant and has treated the appellant with cruelty at
the time she was residing in her matrimonial house and has
also deserted the appellant and, therefore, a prayer has been
made for grant of a decree of divorce in favour of the
appellant.
5. The respondent in spite of paper publication did not
appear and the suit proceeded exparte.
6. The point for consideration was whether the
respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty and
whether the respondent without any reasonable cause had
left the society of the appellant continuously for a period of
more than two years.
7. The appellant had adduced oral evidence by
examining himself as P.W.3 and Rajesh Kumar Pansari as
P.W.1 and Bhuneshwar Choudhary as P.W.2. Since the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro had come to a
conclusion that the appellant has been able to prove cruelty
as well as desertion against the respondent and accordingly
had decided the said points of determination in favour of the
appellant.
8. However, at the same time the learned court below
had saddled the appellant with a permanent alimony to the
tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- with which the appellant is aggrieved.
9. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing
for the appellant has submitted that various factors are
taken into consideration while considering grant of
permanent alimony but none of the factors appear to be
present in the judgment dated 21.06.2019 and only on
account of a presumption that the appellant cannot escape
from his liability of making payment of permanent alimony
an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been awarded in favour of
the respondent.
10. Mr. Ritu Kumar has further submitted that the
amount of permanent alimony as directed against the
appellant has not been preceded by any reasoning and
therefore the said part of the judgment dated 21.06.2019
deserves to be set aside.
11. The appellant in view of the judgment dated
21.06.2019 in which the marriage between the appellant and
the respondent has been dissolved has confined his prayer
only with respect to the permanent alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/-
which has been granted in favour of the respondent. On a
perusal of the judgment dated 21.06.2019 more particularly
paragraph 12 of the said judgment reveals that neither any
reasoning has been given nor the relevant factors for
consideration for grant of permanent alimony has been
depicted in the said paragraph and only on account of the
fact that since the marriage between both parties has been
dissolved and the appellant cannot escape grant of
permanent alimony in favour of the respondent the amount
of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been awarded to the respondent.
12. In the case of "Jalander Patiari vs Pragati Chotre"
reported in AIR 2018 SC 2091, a similar issue in which a
non-reasoned order was passed for grant of permanent
alimony fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and it was held as follows:
"15. In our view, mere perusal of the order of the
Family Court and the High Court quoted supra, would
go to show that both the Courts failed to apply their
judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy
insofar as award of permanent alimony to the
respondent (wife) is concerned. Both the Courts did not
even mention the factual narration of the case set up by
the parties on the question of award of permanent
alimony and without there being any discussion,
appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the
material issues such as, financial earning capacity of
husband to pay the alimony and also the financial
earning capacity of wife, a direction to pay
Rs.15,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony to the
wife was given. In our opinion, such direction is wholly
unsustainable in law.
16. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the
Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case,
which must contain the narration of the bare facts of
the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in
the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the
legal principles applicable to the issues involved and
the reasons in support of the findings recorded based
on appreciation of evidence on all the material issues
arising in the case.
17. It is really unfortunate that neither the Family
Court nor the High Court kept in mind these legal
principles and passed cryptic and unreasoned orders.
Such orders undoubtedly cause prejudice to the parties
and in this case, it caused prejudice to the
appellant(husband) because the orders of the High
Court and Family Court deprived him to know the
reasons for fixing the permanent alimony amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- payable to his wife.
13. In "Vinny Parmvir Parmar vs. Parmvir Parmar" reported
in (2011) 13 SCC 112, it has been observed that the amount
of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can
live in a reasonable comfort considering her status and the
mode of life she was used to when she lived with her
husband. At the same time the amount so fixed cannot be
excessive or affect the living condition of the other party.
14. It has been held in the case of "U Sree vs. U Srinivas"
reported in AIR 2013 SC 415, that while granting permanent
alimony no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there
cannot be mathematical exactitude and it shall depend upon
the status of the parties, the respective social needs, the
financial capacity of the husband and other obligations.
15. The factors enumerated above however have not at all
been considered by the learned court below and by a cryptic
and unreasoned order permanent alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/-
has been granted in favour of the respondent. The same is
not in consonance with the provisions of Section 25 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
16. We therefore come to a conclusion that the Judgment
dated 21.06.2019 passed by Shri Peeush kumar, learned
Principal Judge Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No.
262 of 2016 so far as grant of permanent alimony of
Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent is concerned is
not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore such
direction is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded
back to the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Bokaro to
pass a fresh order in accordance with law so far as
permanent alimony is concerned taking into consideration
the various factors which guide the consideration of grant of
permanent alimony.
17. We further make it clear that we have confined
ourselves to only the illegality in the grant of permanent
alimony to the respondent as challenge was made by the
appellant only to that part of the judgment dated
21.06.2019.
18. This appeal is allowed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 4th day of October, 2023.
Alok/NAFR
