Orissa High Court
Reena Rath @ Reena Tiwari vs Manoj Kumar Tiwari on 8 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.99 of 2021
Reena Rath @ Reena Tiwari .... Appellant
Ms.Geetanjali Majhi, Advocate
-versus-
Manoj Kumar Tiwari .... Respondent
Mr.B.Sahoo, Advocate
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
08.07.2022
Order No.
03. I.A.No.96 of 2022
1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Ms. Geetanjali Majhi, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant has submitted that the applicant (the Appellant) will not
press this application.
3. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Respondent has seriously
condemned the action of the applicant, as according to him, the
Respondent had offered the entire sum of alimony, but the
Appellant did refuse to accept. Now she has come to place claim
for maintenance. Be that as it may, this application stands
dismissed as not pressed.
MATA No.99 of 2021
4. By this appeal, the judgment and decree dated 5.10.2021
delivered in Civil Proceeding No.112 of 2017 by the Judge, Family
Court, Rourkela, Sundargarh has been challenged.
5. It may be noted at the outset that, by the said decree the
marriage subsisting between the Appellant and Respondent has
been brought to an end, pursuant to the decree of divorce. The
judgment, in support of granting decree of divorce, has not been
challenged by the Appellant. The challenge is confined to the
quantum of alimony as determined by the Judge, Family Court.
6. Ms. Majhi, learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that
the Appellant has liability of repayment of loan amount to the
extent of Rs.4,00,000/-. If the alimony is maintained at
Rs.7,00,000/-, as determined by the Judge, Family Court, the
Appellant will be pushed to destitution. As such, interference of
this Court is urged.
7. From the other side, Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for
the Respondent has submitted that the Respondent, even though is a
Central Government employee, his gross salary in the month of
August, 2021 was Rs.40,960/-. Out of that, on statutory deductions
made the Respondent was receiving net pay of Rs.25,175/-. That
apart, Mr.Sahooo, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
has submitted that the Appellant is also engaged and she is also
earning. To that statement, Ms. Majhi, learned counsel appearing
for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant, from that
engagement, hardly earns a sum of Rs.40,000/- per annum.
8. We have considered the cost of livelihood, the Appellant's right
to have the standard of livelihood, the age of the Appellant, vis-à-
vis the income and the financial resources of the Respondent as she
was enjoying. We are of the view that the Judge, Family Court
while assessing the alimony did not consider the factors those are
relevant for determination of the alimony. Having considered these
factors, as noted above, and the standards of life that the Appellant
should be provided to, we are of the view that the Appellant is
entitled to get the alimony, lump sum to the extent of
Rs.15,00,000/-(Fifteen lakhs) as alimony.
9. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has
fairly submitted that out of the said alimony, Rs.7,00,000/-(Seven
lakhs) will be paid within fifteen days from the date of decree. The
remaining amount of the alimony, we direct to be paid within three
months from the date of decree. On failure of payment, in terms of
this direction, the Appellant will be entitled to recover the said
amount as money decree through the court of the Judge, Family
Court. Rourkela. In the event of default in payment, the Respondent
will have to pay, in addition, the interest at the rate of 7% per
annum from the date of decree to the date of actual payment made.
10. In terms of the above, the appeal stands allowed. Draw the
decree accordingly. Send down the L.C.Rs. thereafter.
( S. Talapatra)
Judge
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R. Biswal / M.K.Panda
