Shilpa Samantaray vs Samarendra Biswal
2023 Latest Caselaw 8341 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          MATA NO.180 OF 2019
        Shilpa Samantaray                     ....             Appellant
                                                      Mr.P.K.Das, Adv.

                                   -versus-

        Samarendra Biswal                     ....           Respondent
                                                   Mr.S.K.Patnaik, Adv.

                  CORAM:
                 JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                 JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

                                  ORDER

Order 1.8.2023 No.

12. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel

for the Respondent.

2. This Matrimonial Appeal appears to be involving a

challenge to the final judgment in C.P. No.669/2016 and Crl.

Proceeding No.272/2015 passed by the Judge, Family Court,

Cuttack. Undisputedly, there involves a decree for divorce in

allowing a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakh) as permanent

alimony. In deposit of the permanent alimony, the Wife has already

withdrawn such amount long since. There is clear statement by the

learned counsel for the Wife that the matter now confines to

enhancement of permanent alimony keeping in view the future of

minor child involved. Taking this Court to the development taken

place in the meantime, the Husband-Respondent having married to

// 2 //

another girl on earlier occasion, the Wife has already accepted the

impugned judgment so far it relates to her, learned counsel for the

Wife-Appellant in presence of the Wife in the previous proceeding

contended, there was no possibility of re-union and thus the Appeal

remained confined to the enhancement of permanent alimony aspect.

3. In course of hearing, argument has been advanced involving

the impugned judgment to the extent that while the Family Court

considering permanent alimony aspect has completely kept the

future of the minor child away from the consideration process and

there should be some protection to the minor child, who is presently

staying with the mother. There has been admission at Bar that the

following direction of the Family Court in the grant of divorce

quantifying the permanent alimony at Rs.15.00 lakh and the same

being deposited, the Wife has already taken such amount.

4. The direction of the Family Court dated 25.9.2019 issued in C.P. No.669/2016 and Crl. Proceeding No.272/2015 is extracted hereunder :-

"The civil proceeding is allowed on contest without cost against the respondent. The marriage solemnized between the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife dated 18.06.2010 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce. Taking into consideration, the necessities of the respondent, the income of the petitioner, the social status of both parties and the present cost of living, I direct the petitioner to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- to the wife-respondent. In case of non- payment of the aforesaid permanent alimony by the O.P., the wife (respondent) has at liberty to realise the same under due process of law."

// 3 //

5. Thus presently, the litigation confines to enhancement, if

any, in the permanent alimony keeping in view the future prospect of

the child, who is presently prosecuting in Class-VI in the Orchids

International School, Bengaluru. In the process of argument, this

Court has also entered into interaction with the Wife and Husband

together keeping away the Bar from such discussion. In the process

of discussion, it reveals through the Wife that though the Wife was

contributing in respect of the son wholly till 2022 but however in

enjoyment of the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- granted by the trial court

as permanent alimony but since January of this year, the Husband

has started contributing for the child's education expenditure and in

the process, he has in the meantime deposited 50% of the

educational fee meant for the education year involving the child

involved. The Wife is also fair enough in admitting that she is in

employment but in receipt of salary nearly Rs.30,000/- per month

and she is staying in a rented house in Bengaluru.

6. On the threadbare discussion with the Wife and Husband

presently, this Court finds, both are interested to see the welfare of

the child and in the discussion on the claim of the Wife for fixing

some deposits in the name of the minor child to undertake the child's

educational aspect, the Husband volunteers to go on making deposit

of son's annual expenditure and transport related expenditure

annually and immediately on such exigency. For the Husband

// 4 //

volunteering to meet with his child's educational expenditure, this

Court finds, there is no purpose keeping any lumpsum for the

purpose. In the process, both have agreed that the Fixed Deposit of a

sum of Rs.10.00 lakh besides the Husband goes on meeting the

educational expenses of the child involved will be manageable to

maintain the future aspect of the child. Considering the above, this

Court directs the Husband to bring a Draft drawn in the name of the

minor child for a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- (rupees ten lakh and fifty

thousand) in any nationalized bank on the next date. Wife getting the

Draft from this Court will invest a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten

lakh) in a bank account in the name of the minor child, mother

becoming the guardian in respect of such account will be kept in

Fixed Deposit in the same bank for at least ten years. Benefit of it

shall be enjoyed only by the son after ten years. This apart, in course

of discussion, considering the other needs in so far as the minor

child is concerned, since there is deposit of 50% of the partly fee of

the minor child involved, we record the consent of the Husband

agreeing to online transfer of the rest/balance amount and furnishing

the deposit proof on the next date of posting.

7. So far as the future educational expenditure is concerned, we

appreciate the Husband consenting to go on meeting with future

expenditure of the child. So far as it relates to education and

transportation, we record the willingness of the Husband to go on

// 5 //

depositing the requirement on being communicated along with proof

by the Wife at appropriate time within seven days of receipt of such

notice. The Wife-Respondent brings to the notice of the Court that

there has been interaction between the son and father several times

but over phone and she has no hesitation if the Husband is allowed

to have visiting right with the husband and even spending some time

with the son but in vacation time. We also record the undertaking of

the Wife, who is to withdraw all proceedings pending involving both

shall stand terminated on disposal of this case. Thus the Husband is

directed to give proposal of his visit possibilities to see the son in the

school, in the residence of the Wife further also spending some time

in the possible vacation for consideration of the Court on the next

date of posting.

8. On consent of both the Parties and to facilitate the Wife to

take leave from her Employer and join in the further proceeding of

the litigation in person here on 14.8.2023, we propose to postpone

the case to 14.8.2023, on which date the Wife, the Husband and the

Son shall remain present in this Court.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANOJ KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication (M.S.Sahoo) Location: High Court of Orissa Judge Date: 04-Aug-2023 16:20:56 M.K.Rout