Madras High Court
Mr.Sijan Antony William vs Mrs.Regina Lavanya on 22 October, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
C.M.A.No.1938 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 29.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.M.A.No.1938 of 2018
& C.M.P.No.14906 of 2018
Mr.Sijan Antony William ...Appellant
Versus
Mrs.Regina Lavanya ...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order of III Additional
Family Court at Chennai passed in Original Petition No.2021/2014 dated
07.10.2017 insofar as the direction awarding Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees
Eighteen Lakhs Only) towards permanent alimony to the respondent herein.
For Appellant : Mrs.D.Geetha
For Respondent : Mrs.Auxila Peter
******
JUDGMENT
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU, J. )
The respondent/wife herein has filed a petition before the Trial Court
for grant of divorce and to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs
only) towards permanent alimony. The Trial Court has allowed the petition
in part and granted divorce, awarding a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- towards
permanent alimony. Aggrieved by the said order, in respect of awarding a
sum of Rs.18,00,000/- towards permanent alimony, the present appeal is
preferred by the appellant/husband.
2. Before the Trial Court on the side of the appellant/ respondent, the
husband himself was examined as R.W.1 and exhibits Ex.R1 to R7 were
marked whereas on the side of the respondent/ wife, she was examined as
P.W.1 and exhibits Ex.P1 to P21 were marked. The Trial Court, after
hearing both sides and perusing the records, granted the decree of divorce
and also awarded a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. The
aggrieved husband has preferred the present appeal against the awarding of
Rs.18,00,000/- as permanent alimony for the respondent/wife.
3. Mrs.D.Geetha, learned counsel for the appellant/husband would
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submit the following:-
(a) The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was
solemnized on 05.12.2012 at Divine Mercy Shrine, Anna Nagar, Chennai, as
per Christian Rites and Customs. There is no issue out of the wedlock for
the couple. After marriage, the respondent/wife insisted in setting up a
separate matrimonial home at Velacherry, Chennai rather living as a joint
family alongwith the parents of the appellant. Whenever the appellant's
family visited the appellant at Velacherry, the respondent/wife frequently
quarrelled with the appellant, thereby causing cruelty.
(b) The appellant/husband is working in a private concern and in order
to meet the huge marriage expenses incurred, he borrowed large sums of
money from his friends and relatives, to meet such expenses. Besides, the
respondent/wife always insisted the appellant to borrow money so that she
can spend lavishly and lead a luxurious life. The respondent/ wife was
working as Senior copywriter/Co-ordinator at Elsevier Publishing Services
and was earning Rs.35,000/- per month.
(c) On 17.07.2013, the respondent/wife locked the house using
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
another lock and key and sent out the appellant's parents without informing
the appellant, in order to prevent the appellant from entering the house.
Therefore, he lodged a complaint before J.7 Police Station, Velacherry on
28.07.2013 to open the lock of the house. At the time of enquiry, the
respondent/wife brought the key to open the house on condition that she
would take all her belongings. Acceding to the condition imposed by the
respondent/wife, on 30.09.2013, the door was opened and the
respondent/wife took away all the jewels from the matrimonial home. In
spite of the advice given by the elders and upon counselling rendered, the
respondent/wife was not interested to lead matrimonial life with the
appellant.
(d) The respondent/wife herself came forward for mutual consent of
divorce and sent a legal notice on 01.04.2014. The respondent/wife even
forced the appellant to take away his belongings from her and threatened to
lodge a complaint if he does not take his belongings from her. Even though
the appellant expressed his willingness to live with the respondent/wife, she
never came forward to lead a matrimonial life. The Court below, has
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
granted the decree of divorce along with a direction to pay permanent
alimony of Rs.18,00,000/- to the respondent /wife, which according to the
learned counsel for the appellant is arbitrary and perverse. The
respondent/wife at the time of leaving the matrimonial house, had taken all
her jewels along with 14 sovereigns of gold jewels of the appellant.
Therefore, that 14 sovereigns of gold jewels have to be taken into account
and the same has to be deducted from the amount awarded by the Court
below. Further, at the time of hearing the appeal, this Court directed the
appellant/ husband to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Therefore, according
to the learned counsel for the appellant/husband, the aforementioned
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with the jewels taken by the respondent/wife
are very much sufficient to satisfy the awarded amount.
(e) Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/ husband
submitted that the respondent/wife is not entitled to any permanent alimony
from the appellant and hence, he prays to set aside the direction of awarding
Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Only) towards permanent alimony
to the respondent/wife by way of filing the present civil miscellaneous
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal.
4. Per contra, Mrs.Auxila Peter, learned counsel for the
respondent/wife would submit the following:-
(a) From the day of inception of marriage, the appellant and his
parents have been criticising the respondent and they often used to pass rude
comments about the respondent's saree, jewels and household articles
provided by her parents. The appellant never respected the respondent and
her family members. The grievance of the respondent/wife is that the
appellant/husband always borrowed large debts from banks and spent it
lavishly and he did not have the thought to save money for the family.
(b) Moreover, according to the learned counsel for the
respondent/wife, the appellant had close contact with a married woman by
name Bini Pereira living in Mumbai, who was ex-fiancée of the appellant
and the appellant/husband has been frequently sending messages to her. The
appellant/husband humiliated the respondent even to the extent of posting
screen-shots, wordings about personal relationship and status in public social
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
media like Face book..etc. It is further submitted that the respondent/wife
got pregnant and also suffered a miscarriage.
(c) According to the learned counsel, the appellant and his parents
verbally abused the respondent and her family members and made false
allegations. The appellant/husband demanded dowry from the respondent
but the same was not accepted by the parents of the respondent, which was
the ultimate reason for the appellant to cause cruelty to the respondent.
Therefore, the respondent/wife filed a petition for grant of divorce and to
pay permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Court below, after
considering the submissions made by both sides, has awarded the decree of
divorce and granted permanent alimony of Rs.18,00,000/- to the respondent
wife, which is a well reasoned order and the same does not warrant the
interference of this Court.
(d) The contention raised by the appellant/husband that the
respondent/wife has taken 14 sovereigns of jewels is denied by the
respondent. The Trial Court has only fixed a meagre amount and directed to
pay a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen lakhs only) and considering
the cost of living of the respondent, the said amount awarded by the Trial
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court is just and reasonable one and therefore, the present appeal is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for dismissing the
appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this
Court and upon such perusal, the point for determination in this appeal is
whether the quantum of the amount awarded by the Trial Court is justifiable
or not?
6. In this case, there is no dispute as to the relationship stated between
the parties and also to the fact that there is no child born out due to the
wedlock. The respondent/wife has filed a petition for divorce before the
Trial Court on the ground of cruelty and also sought for permanent alimony
of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Trial Court has granted divorce and awarded a sum
of Rs.18,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. The present appeal is filed
only challenging the quantum of the amount awarded by the Trial Court by
the appellant/husband. It is to be taken into consideration that the appellant
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has not challenged the order passed by the Trial Court by granting divorce.
Now the only point is with respect to the quantum of the amount awarded by
the trial Court.
7. In order to prove the financial capacity, no evidence was adduced
by either of the parties. It is an admitted fact that the respondent/ wife was
employed in a private company and she was earning a sum of Rs.35,000/-
per month. There is no proof to show regarding the financial source of the
appellant. Even as per the averments of the appellant, the appellant is having
an habit of incurring expenses towards his luxurious life and he has not
taken any steps to save the money.
8. This Court perused the evidence of both sides and on perusal, it
would reveal that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the
respondent/wife had taken 14 sovereigns of jewels of the appellant. But
during the deposition of PW1, the respondent/wife(PW1) herself has stated
that she had taken the jewels along with the jewels of the appellant. Even in
the document Ex.P.7, there is a recital that the respondent/wife had taken her
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
jewels along with the jewels of the appellant. However, there is no mention
about the quantity of the jewels. The Trial Court has awarded a sum of
Rs.18,00,000/- towards permanent alimony without any evidence to prove
the financial capacity of the appellant. Further, the Trial Court failed to
consider the employment of the respondent/wife. While that being the fact,
the quantum of the amount awarded by the Trial Court is too high and
considering that the respondent/wife is also working and earning a sum of
Rs.35,000/- per month and considering the financial position of both the
parties, this Court is inclined to modify the awarded sum of permanent
alimony from Rs.18,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- payable to the
respondent/wife by the appellant/ husband.
11. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal stands partly Allowed
and the decree and the judgment passed by the Trial Court with regard to the
quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the Trial Court is modified and
reduced from Rs.18,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. The amount of Rs.4,00,000/-
already deposited by the appellant/husband before this Court has to be
withdrawn by the respondent/wife on filing appropriate application. The
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/- has to be paid within a period of two (2)
months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. No costs.
Connected, miscellaneous petition stands closed.
(J.N.B.J) (P.D.B.J)
22.10.2024
Index : Yes/no
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
sts
To:
The III Additional Family Court,
Chennai.
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
P.DHANAPAL, J.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sts
Judgment made in
Dated:
22.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
