Himantini Manjari Sethy vs Bijay Kumar Sethy
2023 Latest Caselaw 14824 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                MATA No. 32 OF 2023

            Himantini Manjari Sethy                ....            Appellant

                                                   Mr. S. P. Dash, Advocate
                                      -versus-

            Bijay Kumar Sethy                      ....          Respondent

                                              Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate


                    CORAM:
                                JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

                                       ORDER

16.11.2023 Order No.

07. 1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-

wife. He submits, considering income of respondent-husband and

status, there ought to have been direction for permanent alimony on a

larger sum. His client being aggrieved has preferred appeal.

2. He submits, relevant is paragraph-13 in impugned judgment

dated 28th October, 2022 of the family Court. The direction is

erroneous on having failed to appreciate the facts. There be

modification by enhancement of the direction in appeal.

3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of

respondent-husband and submits at the outset that permanent alimony

// 2 //

directed at Rs.20,00,000/- has been paid. It was accepted without

demur by appellant-wife. He submits, impugned judgment be

confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

4. We reproduce below prayer made in the memorandum of

appeal.

<It is therefore humbly prayed that let this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this application, issue notice to the Opp. Parties call for the records from the court below and after hearing the parties the Judgment dtd.28.10.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Keonjhar in connection with C.P. Case No.89 of 2017 under Annexure-1 may kindly be setaside/modified by enhansinging the quantum of permanent alimony for the interest of justice.=

We note that appellant is before us for modification of impugned

judgment by enhancing the quantum of permanent alimony. It follows

that the appeal is not directed against the other findings. They are that

appellant-wife has been both cruel to respondent-husband and had

deserted him.

5. Perused paragraph-13 in impugned judgment. It appears, the

Court below found respondent-husband to be of 54 years age and was

earning Rs.79,838/- as on and for month of February, 2022.

Considering the same and other facts, said Court went on to direct

permanent alimony at Rs.20,00,000/-. It is not disputed that the sum

has been paid to appellant-wife.

// 3 //

6. In view of facts found by the Court below and there being no

dispute on appellant-wife having had been cruel as well as deserted

respondent-husband, the situation does not provide any basis for

enhancement nor could anything else be shown to us by appellant.

Appellant having had married respondent-husband was obliged on her

part to invest in the marriage and make it work. She was found to have

been cruel and had deserted him. Yet, the husband had said he would

provide some permanent alimony at Rs.5,00,000/- to 8,00,000/-. The

Court below in considering the facts and stated willingness directed

Rs.20,00,000/- to be paid as permanent alimony. The direction appears

to have been made with regard to, inter alia, the husband's income,

conduct of the parties and circumstances of the case. As such we do

not find ground to interfere with impugned judgment. It is confirmed.

7. The appeal is dismissed.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Nov-2023 10:36:16