Sri B Chitharanjan vs Smt Sowmya Rao
2021 Latest Caselaw 803 Kant

                           1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                       PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

                         AND

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA


MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3308 OF 2016 (FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI.B.CHITHARANJAN
SON OF KAMALAKSHA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESIDING NEAR MARIGUDI TEMPLE
BOLAR, MANGALURU-575 001.
                                       ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI:P.KARUNAKARA, ADVOCATE (VC))

AND:

SMT.SOWMYA RAO
DAUGHTER OF B.RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDING AT V.R.T.COMPOUND
MULIHITHLU
MANGALURU-575 001.
                                       ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI:H.GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE (VC))

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 9(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.3.2016 PASSED IN
M.C.NO.45 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
                             2



FAMILY COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) OF THE
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the husband assailing the

direction issued by the Family Court, Dakshina Kannada,

Mangaluru, in M.C.No.45 of 2015 dated 11/03/2016 to pay

permanent alimony of Rs.6,00,000/- to the respondent

herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant

had filed the petition under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Act" for the sake of brevity), seeking dissolution of his

marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce. The

Family Court granted divorce and dissolved the marriage

between the parties which was solemnized on 29/05/2013

at Ramakshathriya Kalyana Mandira, near Morgan's gate,

Jeppu, Mangaluru. However, while passing the said

judgment and decree, the Family Court also directed the

appellant to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards

permanent alimony within three months from the date of

the said judgment. Being aggrieved by the direction

issued to pay permanent alimony to the respondent, this

appeal has been preferred.

3. We have heard Sri.P.Karunakara, learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri.H.Giridhar, learned

counsel for the respondent and perused the material on

record as well as the original record.

4. Admittedly, the respondent-wife has not

challenged the impugned judgment and decree of

dissolution of marriage and awarding permanent alimony of

Rs.6,00,000/- by the Family Court. Therefore, the decree

of dissolution of marriage has attained finality. The

appellant has challenged the quantum of permanent

alimony granted by the Family Court to the respondent.

5. It is noticed that both the parties have adduced

evidence before the Family Court regarding their

contentions. Admittedly, the respondent is residing in her

parental house and there is nothing on record to show that

the appellant has ever paid any maintenance to her.

However, it is contended that the respondent is a double

graduate working in the office of Chartered Accountant at

Mangaluru. It is contended by the appellant that she is

drawing Rs.10,000/- per month and she is in a position to

maintain herself. But the salary certificate produced by the

appellant himself as per Ex.P13 discloses that the

respondent was paid a sum of Rs.7,500/- and the

certificate is dated 08/12/2015. The Family Court relied on

the evidence of the appellant that he is a driver by

profession and owning two auto rickshaws and a tourist car

and those vehicles are being run by engaging drivers.

From this evidence, the Family Court formed an opinion

that since the marriage between the parties was being

dissolved, the respondent-wife was entitled for permanent

alimony of Rs.6,00,000/- in the nature of compensation

and by way of damages payable by the husband to the

wife.

6. Even though, learned counsel for the appellant

contended that the quantum of permanent alimony is on

the higher side, looking to the inflation, in the recent years,

we are of the opinion that the permanent alimony at the

rate of Rs.6,00,000/- awarded in favour of the respondent

cannot be termed as on the higher side or unreasonable.

The respondent has to lead her life. It cannot be said that

the monthly salary she is drawing from the office of the

Chartered Accountant at the rate of Rs.7,500/- or little

more than that is sufficient to lead a decent life.

Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed

by the Family Court in determining the quantum of

permanent alimony at Rs.6,00,000/- which is not

exorbitant at all.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not

find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is hence,

dismissed.

At this stage, it is noted that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

has been deposited by the appellant before this Court and

the same has been permitted to be withdrawn by the

respondent-wife. The appellant to deposit the balance

amount of Rs.4,00,000/- within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this

judgment.

No Costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

*bgn/-