Karnataka High Court
Shri. Kamlesh Prabhakar Paradkar vs Smt. Sapana Dayanand Sawant Alias on 20 November, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16879-DB
MFA No. 100826 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100826 OF 2021 (MC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. KAMLESH PRABHAKAR PARADKAR
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
ASSISTANT, C/O. PRABHAKAR NANA PARADKAR,
A-22, SARVAMANGAL C.H.S., 6TH FLOOR,
LOK PRIYA PARK, BHANDUP VILLAGE,
BHANDUP EAST, MUMBAI-400042, MAHARASHTRA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.A.KALEBUDDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SAPANA DAYANAND SAWANT @ PREETI
W/O. KAMLESH PARADKAR,
Digitally signed
AGED 39 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
by MANJANNA E R/O. JOSHIWADA, NANDANGADDA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KARWAR-581301, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD KARNATAKA.
BENCH
Date: 2024.11.27 ...RESPONDENT
10:48:47 +0530
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,
1955, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.03.2020
PASSED IN MATRIMONIAL CASE NO.44/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARWAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED U/SEC. 13(1)(ia)(ib) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,
1955.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16879-DB
MFA No. 100826 of 2021
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
This appeal is filed by the husband challenging the
judgment and decree dated 23.03.2020 passed in
M.C.No.44/2015 by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Karwar, allowing the petition filed by the wife
under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short)
dissolving the marriage solemnized between the appellant
and the respondent on 23.06.2007.
2. The appellant/husband was the respondent and
the respondent/wife was the petitioner in M.C.No.44/2015
before the Family Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Family Court
henceforth.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16879-DB
4. Brief facts of the case are that, the marriage of
the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on
23.06.2007 at Jain Mandir, LBS Road, Bhandup West
Mumbai as per Hindu rites, rituals and custom prevailed in
their community. The petitioner is a B.Com graduate and
the respondent is a B.E. Mechanical Engineer and working
as Scientific Research Assistant for Baba Atomic Research
Centre at Mumbai. After marriage, the petitioner was
taken to flat of the respondent at No.A/22, Sarvamangal
CHS, 6th floor, Bhandu. Since the brothers and their wives
of the respondent were employed, the petitioner was put
under pressure to secure a job. The respondent and his
mother hit the petitioner, abused and adversely compared
her with the daughter-in-law who was working as steno in
the Ministry. The petitioner secured job at S.K. Group
company on monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-. After sometime
she became pregnant and she had to quit the job. The
respondent and his mother were against the pregnancy
and pressurized the petitioner to terminate the pregnancy
to which she did not agree. Therefore, the petitioner hit
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16879-DB
the petitioner with broom, due to which she started
bleeding. The respondent did not take the petitioner for
medical treatment and she herself got admitted to the
hospital and the respondent and his family members did
not assist the petitioner in any way. The mother of the
petitioner requested the respondent to be kind with the
petitioner, but the respondent continued to abuse and ill
treat the petitioner. It is contended that the respondent is
actively participating with black magic with the help of
Babas and Maulvis. The respondent took the petitioner to
them and also to psychiatrist and enquired the doctors
about aborting the child. Therefore, the petitioner came to
her parental house at Karwar at seven months of
pregnancy and gave birth to a baby boy and neither the
respondent nor his family members attended the cradle
ceremony on 05.06.2008. After three months, the
petitioner returned to house of the respondent. It is
contended that the child was admitted to an expensive
school by the respondent and he took money from the
petitioner for the fees and due to the extravagant
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16879-DB
behaviour of the respondent, the petitioner had to take up
employment with Manha finance and later at Forties
Hospital Pvt. Ltd. On 23.08.2015, the respondent beat the
petitioner and driven out her from the house. Police
complaint was also lodged in that regard and she has
taken shelter at Sri. Mukti Sangathana and after
intervention of police and Sangathana, she went to live
with the respondent. After a couple of days, he thrashed
her again with slipper in front of the maid servant who
rescued her and unable to bear the same, she returned to
her parental home at Karwar. Hence, she filed a petition
seeking a decree for dissolution of her marriage with the
respondent.
5. After institution of the petition before the
Family Court, the respondent/husband appeared through
counsel and filed a detailed objection admitting their
marriage, qualification and the child born out of their
wedlock but, however, denied the allegation of use of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16879-DB
abusive words, assault and harassment both physically
and mentally.
6. The petitioner, in order to prove her case, got
examined herself as PW-1 and got marked three document
as Exs.P1 to P-3. On behalf of the respondent, the
respondent except examining himself as RW.1, did not
produce any documents.
7. The Family Court after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, allowed the petition in
part by awarding decree of divorce and granting
permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the
respondent/husband has filed this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for appellant/husband
vehemently contended that, the petitioner/wife is a B.Com
graduate. The petitioner, prior to the marriage was
working and earning good amount of salary and currently
she is working at Forties Hospital, Goa as an accountant.
The respondent/husband is a Mechanical Engineer and is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16879-DB
working as a Scientific Research Assistant at Bhaba Atomic
Research Centre at Mumbai.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the appellant has no grievance with respect to the
order of decree of divorce granted by the Family Court,
but is aggrieved by the direction of the Family Court to
pay permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- to the
respondent. He contended that since the respondent is
working at Forties Hospital, Goa as an accountant, grant of
permanent alimony to the petitioner/wife does not arise.
Hence, the learned counsel prays to reduce the grant of
permanent alimony to the petitioner/wife.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant/husband. Though the respondent/wife is served,
she remained absent.
11. We have perused the entire material available
on record.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16879-DB
12. Since, as contended by the learned counsel for
the appellant that he has no grievance with regard to the
decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, we restrain
ourselves from considering the said aspect.
13. So far as the grievance of the appellant with
respect to grant of permanent alimony is concerned, from
the perusal of the oral evidence of PW.1, RW.1 and Exs.P-
1 to 3, it clearly establish that the respondent is working
and from the evidence it reveals that the petitioner/wife is
working at Forties Hospital, Goa, as an accountant.
Further the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband
have a son who is studying in PUC. Therefore, it is the
duty of the respondent, who being the father and
husband, has to look after his son as well as his
wife/petitioner.
14. Considering the status of the parties, including
the education of their son, their avocation, cost of living in
the present society and with regard to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it is just and necessary
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16879-DB
to reduce the permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/-
awarded by the Family Court to Rs.5,00,000/- which would
meet the ends of justice.
15. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment
and decree dated 23.03.2020 passed in
M.C.No.44/2015 by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Karwar, is hereby
confirmed. However, the permanent alimony
granted by the family Court is reduced to
Rs.5,00,000/- from Rs.10,00,000/-.
ii) The appellant/husband is directed to pay
permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- to the
respondent within four months from today.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KMV
Ct:vh
