[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr Allan Pinto vs Mrs Carol Judith Chandini Pinto on 19 December, 2025
-1-
MFA No. 9565 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 48 of 2018
Reserved on : 11.12.2025
Pronounced on : 19.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 9565 OF 2017 (IDA)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 48 OF 2018
IN MFA No. 9565/2017
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ALLAN PINTO,
S/O LATE OSWALD PINTO,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT No.302, 3RD FLOOR,
Digitally signed
by VALLI PROVINCE ABODE 1,
MARIMUTHU BEJAI NEW ROAD,
Location: MANGALURU-575 004.
HIGH COURT ...APPELLANT
OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS. CAROL JUDITH CHANDINI PINTO,
W/O ALLAN PINTO,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
PERMANENTLY R/AT,
9TH FLOOR 901, MONALISA APARTMENT,
NEAR BEJAI CHURCH,
MANGALURU-575 004.
-2-
MFA No. 9565 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 48 of 2018
PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NAMED
SEGUL APARTMENT,
FLAT No.117, 1ST FLOOR,
BEHIND DUBAI GRAND HOTEL,
A1-QUSIAS, DUBAI.
MOBILE No.971 56 175 2041.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE
FAMILY COURT ACT R/W SECTION 55 OF INDIAN DIVORCE
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
22.11.2017 PASSED ON MC No.299/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU,
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 10(1)(x) OF
DIVORCE ACT.
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. CAROL JUDITH CHANDINI PINTO,
W/O MR. ALLAN PINTO,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
PERMANENTLY R/AT,
9TH FLOOR, 901, MONALISA APARTMENT,
NEAR BIJAI CHURCH,
MANGALURU-575 004 (DK).
WORKING AT CHANEL LTD.,
FZE, DUBAI AIRPORT FREEZONE,
WEST WING 4, A BLOCK,
3RD FLOOR, P.O. BOX 54345,
DUBAI, U.A.E.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. ALLAN PINTO,
S/O LATE OSWALD PINTO,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT No.302, 3RD FLOOR,
PROVINCE ABODE 1,
BEJAI NEW ROAD,
MANGALURU-575 004(DK).
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE
FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 22.11.2017 PASSED ON MC No.299/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU,
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 10(1)(x) OF
DIVORCE ACT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, K.V. ARAVIND, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
Heard Sri Hemanth Kumar D., learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-husband in MFA No.9565/2017, who is the
respondent in MFA No.48/2018; and Sri Cyril Prasad Pais,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife, who is the
appellant in MFA No.48/2018.
2. MFA No.9565/2017 is filed by the respondent-
husband in M.C. No.299/2015, seeking to set aside the
judgment and decree dated 22.11.2017 and to set aside the
grant of permanent alimony of ₹15.00 lakhs awarded to the
child by the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru1.
MFA No.48/2018 is filed by the petitioner-wife in M.C.
No.299/2015, seeking enhancement of the permanent alimony
awarded to the minor child from ₹15.00 lakhs to ₹30.00 lakhs
and for awarding a sum of ₹30.00 lakhs towards permanent
alimony to the petitioner, by modifying the judgment and
decree dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Family Court.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before
the Family Court for convenience.
Factual Matrix:
4. The marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent was solemnized on 15.03.2017 before J.J.V.
Fernandez, Christian Marriage Registrar. The petitioner filed a
petition under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869,
seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. At
the time of the marriage, both the petitioner-wife and the
respondent-husband were employed in Dubai. It is contended
that the respondent did not contribute towards family
maintenance and, instead, incurred expenditure on high-end
Family Court
cars, gadgets, and expensive alcohol. Despite requests made
by the petitioner to contribute towards household expenses, the
respondent remained evasive. It is further stated that the
petitioner purchased a two-bedroom apartment in the joint
names of the petitioner and the respondent, investing nearly
70% of her monthly salary towards the said purchase.
4.1 The petitioner conceived in June 2008 and was
compelled to continue working during the period of pregnancy
in order to meet the family's maintenance expenses. The entire
expenditure relating to the pregnancy, including post-natal
expenses, was borne by the petitioner. The petitioner delivered
a male child on 08.03.2009 at Dubai. After the delivery, the
petitioner and the respondent resided at the petitioner's
parental home in Dubai, where the respondent allegedly
exhibited egotistic behaviour and frequently engaged in heated
and violent arguments with the petitioner and her parents. It is
stated that the respondent left the house and returned after
two weeks, only to resume arguments and issue threats to the
petitioner. The respondent is further alleged to have created a
nuisance during the naming ceremony held at St. Michael's
Church, Sharjah, to which he did not extend any assistance. It
is also alleged that the respondent abused the petitioner in
filthy language in the presence of her parents.
4.2 It is further stated that the respondent is an
alcoholic and was in the habit of stocking bottles of alcohol in
the house for his consumption. The petitioner was constrained
to bear even the respondent's personal expenses, including fuel
and telephone charges. It is alleged that the respondent
harboured doubts regarding the character of the petitioner and
accused her of having extra-marital relationships with various
persons. It is further alleged that the respondent used to
poison the mind of the minor child by making false allegations
against the petitioner.
4.3 The petitioner's father retired in the year 2013. In
February 2014, it is alleged that the respondent, while in an
intoxicated state, engaged in a violent altercation with the
petitioner and her brother. When the respondent attempted to
assault the petitioner, her brother intervened to restrain him.
However, the respondent is stated to have violently pushed the
petitioner's brother onto a glass dining table, as a result of
which the glass table shattered and the broken pieces pierced
his left leg, leaving him in a pool of blood. It is further alleged
that the respondent hurled broken glass pieces at the
petitioner, causing her to bleed, and also punched the
petitioner's mother on her face. The watchman of the
apartment is stated to have called the police and an
ambulance. It is further stated that, in the hope that the
respondent would mend his ways, no police complaint was
lodged, particularly in view of the strict criminal law prevailing
in Dubai.
4.4 It is stated that the respondent had incurred a
substantial loan to the tune of 3,00,000 Dirhams, giving rise to
apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the creditors
might harass her for repayment of the said loan. It is further
stated that, in the hope of bringing about a change in the
respondent's behaviour, the petitioner took the respondent on
trips to Malaysia and Nepal at her own expense. However,
despite the same, the respondent allegedly continued to abuse
the petitioner and level allegations against her regarding
relationships with various persons.
5. The respondent, in his statement of objections,
while denying the averments made in the petition, has
admitted the marriage. It is stated that the expenses of the
marriage were shared equally. It is alleged that the petitioner
was in the habit of consuming alcohol and smoking, and that
the liquor stored in the house was for her consumption. It is
further stated that the respondent had invested 50% towards
the purchase of the apartment and that the medical expenses
relating to the petitioner's pregnancy were borne by the
petitioner's employer. It is alleged that the petitioner's parents
interfered in the matrimonial life of the parties. According to
the respondent, the petitioner is highly ambitious and money-
minded, desirous of leading a lavish lifestyle, and fond of
expensive alcohol. It is contended that when such lavish
facilities were denied, the petitioner picked quarrels and
insulted the respondent.
5.1 It is alleged that the petitioner used to invite her
friends to the house, consume alcohol with them, and compel
her male friends to stay in the house despite objections raised
by the respondent. It is further stated that the respondent
discovered obscene messages exchanged with one Mr. Jay,
with whom the petitioner allegedly consumed alcohol and
permitted to stay in the house. It is alleged that when the
petitioner was confronted with the said messages, she assured
the respondent that she would not repeat such conduct.
5.2 It is alleged that the petitioner travelled to Goa with
one Mr. Tas, having informed the respondent that she was
proceeding on an official trip along with other staff members,
including female staff. It is stated that when her personal visit
to Goa with the said Mr. Tas was confronted, the petitioner
apologized for the same. It is further alleged that the petitioner
was in the habit of attending late-night parties, consuming
alcohol, and returning home late at night, during which time
the respondent took care of the minor child.
5.3 It is further alleged that, prior to the marriage, the
petitioner was engaged to one Ravi and had an affair with one
Jagdeep Singh. It is stated that, notwithstanding the
respondent's care, love, affection, and attachment towards the
minor child, the child was kept away from him and he was
subjected to harassment. It is further stated that the
respondent has expressed his willingness to rejoin the
petitioner and the minor child and to continue the matrimonial
relationship.
6. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the statement of
objections, contending that the allegations made therein are
defamatory.
- 10 -
7. The Trial Court framed the following points for
consideration;
"1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree
of divorce by dissolving the marriage which
was solemnized between the petitioner and
the respondent on 15.03.2007 before Mr.
J.J.V. Fernandes, Christian Marriage Registrar
on the ground cruelty?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/- for the
maintenance of herself and her child as
prayed?
3. Whether the respondent is entitled for the
restitution of conjugal rights by way of
counter claim?
4. What Order?"
7.1 The above points were answered as under;
"Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: Partly in the Affirmative
Point No.3: In the Negative
Point No.4: As per final order"
8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, the Court held that the petitioner had
established that the respondent subjected her to cruelty by
making false allegations of extra-marital relationships with
- 11 -
other men. It was further held that, as the petitioner was
earning more than the respondent, she was not entitled to
permanent alimony. However, the Court awarded a sum of
₹15.00 lakhs as permanent alimony towards the educational
and other expenses of the minor child. The counter-claim filed
by the respondent seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal
rights was rejected.
Submissions.
9. Sri Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, submits that the award of alimony in favour of
the child is impermissible in law. It is contended that, under
Section 37 of the Divorce Act, alimony can be awarded only to
the petitioner-wife and not to the child. Learned counsel
further submits that the allegations of cruelty pertain to the
period when the parties were residing in Dubai and that they
never resided together in India. It is also contended that the
petitioner-wife is an alcoholic, desirous of leading a lavish
lifestyle, and that when such expenses were not met by the
respondent-husband, false allegations of cruelty were levelled
against him.
- 12 -
9.1 Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner's brother was an alcohol addict and that, when he
created a nuisance, he accidentally fell onto the glass dining
table while being consoled, thereby sustaining injuries, during
which incident the petitioner also suffered injuries. It is
contended that the respondent had no role in the injuries
sustained by the petitioner or her brother. It is further
submitted that, owing to alcohol addiction, the petitioner's
brother passed away a few years later due to related ailments.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner and the respondent
were leading a happy matrimonial life, had travelled to foreign
countries along with the petitioner's parents, and that their
relationship was cordial. It is contended that the relationship
deteriorated on account of the petitioner's alleged alcohol
addiction and her desire to lead a lavish lifestyle involving
substantial expenditure.
9.2 It is submitted that, under the laws of Dubai, a
license is required to possess alcohol at home, and mere
possession of such a license does not indicate an addiction to
alcohol. It is contended that the alcohol stored at home was
primarily for the petitioner's consumption. However, learned
counsel fairly submits that the respondent also consumed
- 13 -
alcohol along with the petitioner. It is further submitted that an
e-mail containing false accusations was sent to create a
purported cause of action for filing the petition and, in effect, to
fabricate evidence. Learned counsel submits that, subsequent
to the sending of the e-mail, the petitioner and the respondent
spent time together, pardoning the earlier incidents. The
photographs of foreign trips produced on record are stated to
indicate a cordial relationship and a happy matrimonial life of
the parties. It is further submitted that, without any just cause,
the respondent was forcibly evicted from the matrimonial
home.
9.3 Learned counsel submits that, although it is alleged
that the respondent had raised substantial loans and failed to
repay the same, the petitioner's apprehension of harassment
by creditors is unfounded, as the existence of such loans has
not been proved. Details regarding the default or the creditors
have not been disclosed. It is further submitted that the
petitioner maintained extra-marital relationships with male
persons and, on one occasion, travelled to Goa under the
pretext of an official trip with one such person. Learned counsel
contends that, despite these incidents, the respondent-
husband remained willing to continue the marital relationship
- 14 -
with the petitioner, which has been unreasonably denied. On
the basis of these submissions, learned counsel prays that the
impugned order may be set aside.
10. Sri Cyril Prasad Pais, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent, submits that the petitioner-wife suffered
injuries on account of the wrongful acts of the respondent-
husband while under the influence of alcohol. It is submitted
that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are supported by
medical certificates and other documentary evidence. Learned
counsel further submits that, in the hope that the respondent
would change his conduct; no police complaint was lodged at
the relevant time. It is stated that the expenses of the foreign
tours to Malaysia and Nepal were borne entirely by the
petitioner-wife. The respondent, it is submitted, failed to bear
any medical expenses relating to the petitioner's pregnancy and
delivery and did not take proper care of the petitioner or the
minor child.
10.1 It is submitted that the respondent has made false
allegations regarding the petitioner's consumption of alcohol
and smoking. Learned counsel contends that the respondent's
unfounded accusations of extra-marital relationships with
- 15 -
multiple persons amount to mental cruelty towards the
petitioner. It is further submitted that the amount of
permanent alimony of ₹15.00 lakhs awarded in favour of the
minor child is insufficient.
10.2 Learned counsel submits that the Family Court
ought to have awarded permanent alimony to the petitioner as
well. It is contended that the fact that the petitioner is earning
does not, by itself, disentitle her from receiving permanent
alimony. Learned counsel further submits that the finding of the
Family Court that the petitioner earns more than the
respondent-husband is without any basis. On these
contentions, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the
respondent-husband's appeal, enhancement of the
alimony/maintenance awarded to the minor child, and an award
of permanent alimony to the petitioner-wife.
11. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
Analysis:
12. The petitioner contended that the respondent
pushed her brother onto a glass dining table, as a result of
which the glass top broke and the shards pierced his left leg,
- 16 -
causing profuse bleeding. It is further alleged that the
respondent subsequently threw the broken glass pieces at the
petitioner, resulting in injuries and bleeding. In support of her
contentions, the petitioner produced Ex.P.3 - Medical Report
and Ex.P.4 - Receipt. Additionally, photographs marked as
Ex.P.5 were also produced on record.
12.1 The evidence of PW.1 reiterates the averments
made in the plaint. The respondent, however, stated that the
petitioner's brother was an alcoholic and, during an altercation,
when the respondent attempted to console him, he accidentally
fell onto the glass top of the dining table. As a result of the
impact, the glass table broke, and the shattered pieces caused
injuries to both the petitioner and her brother. It is noted that
the petitioner did not lodge any police complaint regarding the
incident and has not produced any medical certificates, except
those marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.
12.2 The incident is alleged to have occurred on
01.02.2014. Dr. Abraham Mathew was consulted the following
day for treatment of the injuries, which were reported as
resulting from domestic violence. Ex.P.3 - Medical Report
details the treatment provided to the petitioner and her brother
- 17 -
and advises removal of stitches after ten days. Ex.P.4 -
Receipt, issued by Dr. Abraham Mathew, records consultation,
cleaning, and dressing of the injuries over a period of ten days.
12.3 As admitted by PW.1, Dr. Abraham Mathew was
consulted on only two occasions. It is further stated that the
Mathew Medical Centre, where Dr. Abraham Mathew practices,
is situated approximately 40 kilometres from the location where
the injuries were sustained. PW.1 has also admitted that Dr.
Abraham Mathew is a friend of her father. While Exs.P.3 and
P.4 may cast a shadow of doubt, they nonetheless corroborate
the statements of both parties to the extent of confirming that
injuries were suffered, as neither party has disputed the
incident of the glass top of the dining table breaking or the
injuries sustained as a result of the impact.
12.4 The evidence on record, including the photographs
and medical certificates, does not establish that the respondent
caused injuries to the petitioner or her brother. The Family
Court erred in holding that Ex.P.3 substantiated physical abuse
by the respondent. The Court failed to appreciate that the
evidence relating to the injuries does not, in any manner, prove
that such injuries were inflicted by the respondent. Apart from
- 18 -
the oral testimony of PW.1, there is no other evidence to
support the claim.
13. It is further contended that the respondent is an
alcohol addict and, for the purpose of consuming alcohol, has
obtained an alcohol license issued by the Dubai Government. It
is common ground between the parties that an alcohol license
is required to store liquor at home. It is also undisputed that
the petitioner consumes alcohol. Ex.P.29, being a copy of the
alcohol license, does not indicate the quantity of alcohol
purchased by the respondent. There is no evidence on record
as to the amount of alcohol purchased or consumed by him.
Mere possession of an alcohol license cannot lead to a finding
that the respondent is an alcoholic or that he expends all his
earnings on alcohol. It is established that both parties consume
alcohol, albeit possibly on different occasions and in varying
quantities.
13.1 As regards the photographs depicting the
respondent holding a hookah, the same, by itself, does not
establish that he is an alcoholic. Similar photographs showing
the petitioner holding a hookah are also available on record
(Ex.P.19). These photographs cannot be relied upon to draw
- 19 -
any definitive conclusion against either party. It is difficult to
hold that mere consumption of alcohol would constitute cruelty
towards the petitioner. Accordingly, the finding of the Family
Court in this regard is unsustainable.
14. The respondent alleged that the petitioner
maintained extra-marital relationships with several persons. It
is further contended that the petitioner travelled to Goa with
Mr. Tas, who was said to be her colleague, under the pretext of
an official business trip; however, it is alleged that the trip
involved an extra-marital relationship.
14.1 The petitioner has denied the said allegations by
filing a counter-affidavit to the statement of objections.
Although the petitioner was cross-examined on this aspect, no
substantive or material evidence was elicited. The respondent
has reiterated these allegations in his affidavit examination-in-
chief. However, apart from the oral assertions and bald
allegations contained in the affidavit, no supporting evidence
has been placed on record.
14.2 The respondent claims to have derived knowledge
of the petitioner's alleged relationships from e-mails and
Facebook. If such information existed, there was nothing to
- 20 -
prevent the respondent from producing the same in support of
his case. Given the gravity of the allegations levelled against
the petitioner, failure to establish the same would amount to
character assassination. Such unsubstantiated allegations
warrant strict scrutiny and a cautious approach by the Court.
The evidence on record does not, in any manner, provide the
slightest proof of the allegations.
14.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaykumar
Ramchandra Bhate -vs- Neela Vijaykumar Bhate,2 at
paragraph 7, has held as under;
"7. The question that requires to be answered first is
as to whether the averments, accusations and character
assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the
written statement constitutes mental cruelty for
sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a)
of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to
be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting
accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a
person outside wedlock and allegations of extramarital
relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour,
reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such
aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife,
viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and
judged by Indian conditions and standards would
amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by
itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim
of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in
(2003) 6 SCC 334
- 21 -
the written statement or suggested in the course of
examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy
the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid
down by this Court. On going through the relevant
portions of such allegations, we find that no exception
could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family
Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of
such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause
mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the
reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law
causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the
wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that
it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband
who was taunting her like that and rendered the
maintenance of matrimonial home impossible."
14.4 Having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged,
this Court is inclined to hold that the allegations contained in
the written statement and reiterated in evidence are likely to
cause mental pain, anguish, and suffering, amounting to a
modern conception of cruelty and emotional disruption, thereby
deeply affecting the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence
to substantiate such allegations, it must be inferred that they
were made with the intent to humiliate the petitioner, wound
her feelings, and cause her suffering. Such conduct, therefore,
constitutes cruelty. The petitioner has successfully established
that she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent.
14.5 The finding of the Family Court on this ground is
based on the settled position of law as referred to therein and
- 22 -
is supported by the evidence on record. No contrary evidence
has been placed before this Court to warrant a different
conclusion.
15. The next finding of the Family Court, that the entire
marriage expenses were borne by the petitioner and that the
respondent made no contribution, is of little consequence in the
present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was
compelled to spend her money on marriage expenses, and
there is no averment or evidence on record to that effect. The
exhibits relied upon to show the loans raised and payments
made for marriage expenses merely indicate the expenses
incurred for the marriage and cannot be construed as a
demand made by the respondent that would constitute cruelty.
16. The further finding that the petitioner contributed
towards the purchase of an apartment in the joint names of the
parties is not disputed. Both the petitioner and the respondent
were employed, and if they jointly invested their earnings in
the purchase of the apartment, it can, at most, be regarded as
a mutual investment. In the absence of any contrary pleadings
or evidence, such contribution cannot be construed as
constituting cruelty.
- 23 -
17. The petitioner has alleged that she bore the entire
expenses of her pregnancy. The respondent, however,
contends that such expenses were reimbursed by the
petitioner's employer and that she did not personally incur any
costs. The evidence on record merely demonstrates
withdrawals from a bank account. This ground is of little
consequence in the context of the present case.
18. The petitioner has also sought enhancement of the
permanent alimony awarded to the minor child from ₹15.00
lakhs to ₹30.00 lakhs, and an award of ₹30.00 lakhs as
permanent alimony in her favour.
18.1 The Family Court, while awarding maintenance of
₹15.00 lakhs, took into consideration the income of both
parties and the educational expenses of the minor child. The
maintenance so awarded may be reviewed at a later stage in
the event of a change in circumstances. To consider any
enhancement of maintenance for the child or an award of
permanent alimony to the petitioner, it is necessary for both
parties to file their respective lists of assets and liabilities. In
the absence of such details, this Court finds it difficult to assess
- 24 -
or reassess the quantum of maintenance or permanent alimony
for the child and the petitioner.
18.2 However, the petitioner would be entitled to seek
permanent alimony in separate proceedings in accordance with
law. In the absence of the requisite details, this Court is not
inclined to examine the issue of enhancement of maintenance
for the minor child or the award of permanent alimony to the
petitioner at this stage. The same is, however, kept open for
adjudication in appropriate legal proceedings.
Conclusion:
19. Except as noted in the observations above, the
appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
