Orissa High Court
Surendranath Sahoo vs Sradhanjali Sahoo on 22 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No. 68 of 2020
Surendranath Sahoo .... Appellant
Mr. P.K.Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Sradhanjali Sahoo .... Respondent
Mr. G.C.Mohapatra, Advocate
AND
MATA No. 67 of 2020
Surendranath Sahoo .... Appellant
Mr. P.K.Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Sradhanjali Sahoo and another .... Respondents
Mr. G.C.Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
ORDER
Order No . 22.7.2022
3 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Both the appeals are combined for disposal by a common
judgment inasmuch as by the appeal being MATA No. 68 of
2020 the appellant questions the legality of determination, of
permanent alimony, by the judgment dated 05.05.2020
delivered in Civil Proceeding No. 1136 of 2011 by the Judge,
Family Court, Cuttack and by the appeal being MATA No. 67 of
2020, the appellant questions the legality of the quantum of
maintenance as determined by the Judge, Family Court,
Cuttack by the judgment dated 21.03.2020 delivered in Civil
Proceeding No. 209 of 2011.
3. The decree of divorce as passed pursuant to the judgment
dated 05.05.2020 delivered in Civil Proceeding No. 1136 of
2020, is not under challenge for obvious reason as after ex
parte decree which was subsequently set aside, the appellant
contracted the second marriage.
4. As stated, the judgment dated 21.03.2020 leading to the
order of maintenance emerges from the proceeding instituted
by the respondent in MATA No. 67 of 2020.
5. The said suit was for enhancement of earlier maintenance.
The maintenance granted by the court in Civil Proceeding
No. 59 of 2002 that was ordered earlier was Rs.3000/- for the
respondent. In the changed circumstances, the said suit was
instituted for enhancement of the previous maintenance to
Rs.12,000/-. The Judge, Family Court while passing the
judgment dated 21.03.2020 has taken note of 7th Pay
Commission award by enhancing the pay matrix for the
Central Government employees including the employees under
the Railways. According to the Judge, Family Court, the
appellant was, at the relevant point of time, receiving a sum of
Rs.37,000/- per month. Having considered the said pay matrix
of the appellant herein and the rising price, the maintenance
as awarded earlier by the order dated 18.4.2008 passed in Civil
Proceeding No. 59 of 2002 has been enhanced to Rs.4,000/-
per month for the petitioner no.1 and Rs.3000/- for the
petitioner no.2 (the respondents no.1 & 2 respectively in MATA
No. 67 of 2020). The said judgment has been challenged in
MATA No. 67 of 2020. But the respondent herein filed another
suit seeking dissolution of marriage being Civil Proceeding No.
1136 of 2011. The said suit was allowed after recording
evidence and appreciation thereof. It has been observed that
the matrimonial misconduct of the appellant herein is as such
that the respondent herein was not expected to bear it any
more. At the time of passing the said decree of divorce, the
Judge, Family Court has directed that a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-
towards permanent alimony be paid to the respondent in MATA
No.68 of 2020 with clarification that out of the said amount of
Rs.18,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- will be segregated for
costs of study and marriage of the daughter of the parties
namely Smruti Rekha Sahoo. It has been directed that the
said amount shall be paid within three months from the date of
the said judgment. The appellant has urged in this appeal for
reduction of the quantum of alimony as well as of the monthly
maintenance.
6. We have heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the
appellant. He has strenuously argued before us that the
amount as has been determined, is exorbitant and if it is
retained the appellant will suffer undue hardship inasmuch as
from the second marriage the appellant has children. He has
obligation to maintain his new family.
7. From the other side, Mr. G.C.Mohapatra, learned counsel for
the respondent has robustly submitted that reason given by
the Judge, Family Court for such finding is irreversible. He has
pointed out that the price index and the changes in the pay
matrix of the appellant have been taken into consideration to
determine the changed circumstance and the changes in the
pay matrix of the appellant, for altering the maintenance
allowance. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel has submitted also
that the appellant has defied the direction of the Family Court
by not paying the alimony within three months from the date of
judgment, i.e. 05.05.2020. He has conceded that the payment
of maintenance shall have to be continued till the alimony is
paid and the amount paid as maintenance cannot be
discounted from the lump sum alimony as determined by the
Judge, Family Court. We find sufficient force in the contention
of Mr. Mohapatra. As such, both the appeals are dismissed
with the following direction :
The appellant shall continue to pay the maintenance till
the amount of alimony as determined by the judgment dated
05.05.2020 is paid to the respondent. But we cannot leave a
loose end. The appellant shall pay the said amount of alimony
i.e. Rs.18,00,000/- as determined by the Judge, Family Court
within a period of three months from today. Till then the
appellant shall have to pay the maintenance in the same rate
as has been determined by the judgment dated 21.3.2020.
In result, the impugned judgments are affirmed with
direction as made above. Draw the decree accordingly. Send
down LCR, if received.
(S.Talapatra)
Judge
(M.S.Sahoo)
dutta Judge
