Orissa High Court
Rita Prasad vs Harindra Prasad on 26 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No. 94 of 2020
Rita Prasad .... Appellant
Mr. A.C. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
Harindra Prasad .... Respondent
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE M. S. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 26.09.2022
6. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. A.C. Panda, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and also Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. This is an appeal U/s. 19(1) of the Family Courts
Act, 1984 from the judgment dated 07.02.2020
delivered in C.P. No.82 of 2016 by the Judge, Family
Court, Rourkela, Sundargarh. By the said judgment
dated 07.02.2020, the marriage that was subsisting
between the parties has been dissolved and the decree
of divorce has been accordingly issued. That apart, at
the time of passing the decree of divorce, the Judge,
Family Court had directed the respondent to pay the
// 2 //
permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five
lakhs) to the appellant herein.
4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant has
stated that the no amount has been paid on that
account. It is to be noted that in this appeal, the part of
the judgment so far it is concerned with the dissolution
of marriage has not been questioned by the appellant.
Here the challenge is confined to the quantum of the
alimony, which according to her, is grossly inadequate
for a decent life.
5. It is also to be noted that a cross objection has been
filed by the respondent herein, but Mr. D.K. Mohanty,
learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, has
submitted that he has instruction to not press the
cross objection. Therefore, the solitary question that we
have to address is whether the quantum of permanent
alimony as determined by the Judge, Family Court is
just and proper.
6. The respondent is admittedly serving under the Steel
Authority of India Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant,
// 3 //
Rourkela as Senior Executive. From the salary
statement, which has been admitted as Ext.A in the
proceeding being C.P. No.82 of 2016, it appears that
his gross monthly salary was Rs. 53,686/- in the
month of April, 2018. From that amount, sum of
Rs.33,278/- used to be deducted on various heads. The
respondent used to get a sum of Rs. 20,408/-.
7. We have reasons to believe that during the last four
years, the salary has increased along with other service
benefits.
8. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has submitted that at the time of
determining the quantum of alimony, the conduct of
the appellant be taken into consideration. She was
negligent about her matrimonial obligations and for her
cruelty, the marriage has come to an irretrievable end.
9. We have taken into consideration the
resource/earning of the respondent, the conduct of the
parties and the need of the respondent. It has also
been stated before us that the appellant is getting
// 4 //
Rs.2000 per month as per the order of the Magistrate
passed in a proceeding under the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
10. Having considered all relevant aspects and on
negotiating the comparative financial status of the
parties, we are of the view that the alimony has to be
increased. In our considered opinion, the alimony has
to be Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to be paid at a
time.
11. Having observed thus, we direct the respondent to
pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as the permanent alimony to
the appellant within a period of two months from the
date of decree. We also clarify that the allowance that
the respondent has been paying @ Rs.2000/- per
month will not be required to be paid, any longer but
only after the permanent alimony, as directed, is paid.
A copy of this order be placed to the Court of the
JMFC, Rourkela, who is in seisin of the proceeding
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 so that the order as above, is noticed by the
Magistrate.
// 5 //
12. It is made clear that if the said amount is not paid,
within the stipulated time, the amount of alimony, as
quantified above, shall carry interest @ 7% per annum
from the date of this decree.
13. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed in terms
of the above.
14. The decree shall be drawn. LCRs, if received, be
sent down after preparation of decree.
15. Urgent certified copy be granted as per rules.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
RRJena/GS
