Orissa High Court
Sanjay Kumar Gagrai vs B. Geetanjali on 22 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No. 71 of 2018
Sanjay Kumar Gagrai ........ Appellant
Mr. S. Harichandan, Advocate
-versus-
B. Geetanjali ...... Respondent
Mr. A. Pattanaik, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
22.09.2022
Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Harichandan, learned counsel appearing
for the Appellant and also heard Mr. A. Pattanaik, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent.
3. By means of this appeal, the judgment and order
dated 31.03.2018 delivered in C.P. No.348 A of 2013 has been
questioned. By the said judgment, on the ground of cruelty,
the marriage that was subsisting between the parties has been
dissolved at the instance of the Respondent herein.
4. Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel has at the outset
has submitted that on instruction from the Appellant, he will
abandon the challenge against the decree of divorce. In the
wake of such submission, Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel
referred to the affidavit filed by the Respondent today in the
proceeding, which has been taken on record. It appears from
the said affidavit that the Appellant has married one Sonia
Paleya, whose detail has been given in Paragraph-2 of the said
affidavit. Therefore, we can understand why the abandonment
of the challenge has taken place. Before we embark on the
grounds, we are persuaded to refer to a finding of the Judge,
Family Court, Bhubaneswar in the judgment dated 31.03.2018
delivered in the said matrimonial suit. In the course of efforts
taken under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 specific
proposals and acceptance had taken place. Section 9 lays
down that, in every suit or proceeding, endeavour shall be
taken by the Family Court, in the first instance, where it is
possible to do so consistent with the nature and circumstances
of the case, to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a
settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or
proceeding and for this purpose Family Court may, subject to
any rules made by the High Court, follow such procedure as it
may deem fit. It has been further provided that, If, in any suit
or proceeding, at any stage, it appears to the Family Court that
there is a reasonable possibility of a settlement between the
parties, the Family Court may adjourn the proceedings for
such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to
effect such a settlement.
5. In Paragraph-7 of the judgment dated 31.03.2018, the
Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar has recorded inter alia as
follows:
"07. Points for determination No. ii & iii. To
what other relief the petitioner is entitled? &
Whether the suit for dissolution of marriage is
maintainable?
It is pleaded by the petitioner that her father
had given rupees five lakhs and other valuables
such as TV, Fridge, Cot, Sofa. Respondent has
pleaded that there is no system of any dowry in
that kolho community and that reverse bridge
price of rupees one lakh was paid by him to the
petitioner for winning the confidence of the
petitioner. This payment of rupees one lakh by the
respondent is found to be unbelievable for the
reasons stated above. Simply because petitioner
had not lodged any report against the respondent
for the torture caused to her at Jamnagar it
cannot be concluded that the petitioner was
treated with dignity sought by a women in the
marital society. It is pleaded by the respondent
that both petitioner and the respondent had
agreed for divorce on mutual consent. It is
pleaded by the petitioner that respondent had
agreed for paying rupees ten lakhs towards one
time permanent alimony whereas petitioner had
demanded rupees twenty lakhs towards permanent
alimony. At this point it is pertinent to state that
petitioner has totally spent about two and half
months in the company of the respondent."
Thus, it has been observed by the Judge, Family Court,
Bhubaneswar that, looking at the status of the parties as found
from the records and the rising costs of the bare necessities
and the period for which petitioner had stayed with the
respondent and by resorting to guess work, it has been
observed that the petitioner is entitled to get rupees ten lakhs
from the respondent [the Appellant herein] towards one time
permanent alimony.
6. Now, the solitary point remains to be addressed in the
appeal is that what would be the quantum of the alimony, as
the Appellant has withdrawn the challenge against the decree
of divorce and the Respondent has not shown any agitation
against the quantum determined by the Court below.
7. Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel for the Appellant
has submitted that the Respondent herself had submitted one
document before the Judge, Family Court as regards the
income of the Appellant, but that was not considered. The
Appellant had been working as a mechanical engineer with
ESSAR. It has been stated before us that during the pandemic,
he was laid off and as a result, his income has come truncated
substantially.
8. As we have extracted the finding of the Judge,
Family Court, Bhubaneswar that the Respondent has
categorically stated about an agreement between the parties on
permanent alimony and the said statement nowhere has been
refuted by the Appellant, at least, such statement has not been
recorded by the Judge, Family Court. True it is that the said
statement cannot be treated as admission under Section 17 of
the Indian Evidence Act. But during the efforts taken by the
Judge, Family Court, as is evident, the said understanding was
tentatively arrived at. That was used correctly to explore the
basis to quantify the permanent alimony. To a query from this
Court, Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel for the Appellant has
candidly submitted that it is true that the Appellant did not
take further steps before the Judge, Family Court to get the
record corrected or for modification of the said finding.
9. Even if that 'term' is not treated as admission or as
the part of a concluded contract between the parties, since the
Appellant is a mechanical engineer and he has remarried, we
cannot consider other components of maintenance for the
Respondent and as such, having regard to the status of the
parties, the need of the Respondent, conduct of the parties as
well as the contemplated financial resource of the Appellant,
we think the quantification is not unjustified. Consequently,
we decline to interfere with the amount of the permanent
alimony.
10. Having observed thus, we find no merit in this
appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
11. Draw the decree accordingly.
12. The said amount shall be paid within a period of three
months from the date of decree.
13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per
rules.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
[
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
Murmu
