Orissa High Court
Vivekananda Singh vs Anupriya Singh on 30 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.49 of 2018
Vivekananda Singh .... Appellant
Mr. H.K. Mohanta, Advocate
-versus-
Anupriya Singh .... Respondent
Mr. S.Dash, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
30.06.2022
Order No.
07. 1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Mr. H.K. Mohanta, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant
has reported this Court that he made two communications to the
Appellant, but the Appellant did not communicate any
instructions in terms of the order dated 22.06.2022.
3. Mr. S. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has
submitted that immediately after the decree of divorce was issued,
the Appellant contracted the second marriage.
4. In view of that, this Court had occasion to observe that there is
no possibility of reconstruction of the marriage. As such, the
appeal will be decided on the question of determination of
alimony.
5. It may be noted here that the Respondent in MATA
No.49/2018 has filed a cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of
the C.P.C. for enhancing the alimony in the changed
circumstances.
6. We have taken both the appeal and the cross objection for
disposal today.
7. In the cross objection, the Respondent of MATA No.49/2018
has urged this Court for redrawing the alimony considering the
present financial strength of the Appellant (the husband), who is
working as Asst. Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
(MTNL), Mumbai.
8. According to Mr. S. Das, learned counsel, while the judgment
dated 09.01.2018 was passed, the learned Judge, Family Court,
Baripada allowed the alimony to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/- for
future maintenance to be paid within two months from the date of
the said judgment. Mr. Das has categorically stated that no
amount towards the same has been paid to the Respondent as yet.
Even for his non-participation, the mediation has failed. During
passing of the judgment, the Appellant was working as the Asst.
Manager, MTNL, Mumbai and his income at that time was taken
for determination of the alimony. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel, has
contended that after four years from the date of judgment, it can
be assumed and inferred that the Appellant has progressed in his
career and his earning has definitely increased.
9. From the other side, Mr. H.K. Mohanta, learned counsel, has
submitted that he has no instruction and as such he would refrain
from making any submission on the income of the Appellant.
10. Having situated thus, we are of the view that the appeal filed
by the Appellant being MATA No.49/2018 shall be dismissed as
no materials have been placed before us to infer that the alimony
decided whimsically. Hence, MATA No.49/2018 stands
dismissed.
11. Having due regard to the salaried income of the Appellant
[the Respondent in the cross-objection], we are of the view that
the Respondent [the cross objector] is entitled to receive more
than what has been determined. In view of that, we are persuaded
to enhance the alimony to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees
fifteen lakhs) which shall be paid within a period of two months
from today. As there had been no payment, the entire amount has
to be paid within the said stipulated time. In the event of non-
payment, the Respondent [the cross objector] may put the decree
in execution. It is made further clear that failure of payment
within the stipulated time would make the Appellant liable to pay
7% interest on the said amount, from today till the money is paid.
It is needless to mention that for realizing the said amount, the
decree shall be treated as the money decree. For that purpose,
attachment of the properties of the Appellant, if required, can be
made. In the execution proceeding, on the first day of appearance,
sufficient bank-guarantee has to be procured from the Appellant
in order to discharge the liability. If such bank-guarantee is
produced, the Appellant will not be permitted to raise any
objection against the decree.
12. In terms of the above, the cross objection stands allowed.
13. Registry is directed to prepare the decree.
14. In view of the observation and directions made above, LCRs
be returned. A copy of this order be furnished, free of cost, to the
counsel of the parties.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
MKP/B.K. Barik
