Telangana High Court
K. Abhilasha vs Vamshee K.Kovur , Kovuru Vamshee ... on 25 June, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos.266 and 300 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
These are two appeals which have been filed by either of the
spouses. For convenience they will henceforth be referred to as
husband and wife.
2. Family Court Appeal No.266 of 2015 is an appeal preferred by
the wife and Family Court Appeal No.300 of 2015 is an appeal
preferred by the husband. Both these appeals have been filed
assailing the order dated 13.06.2015 passed by the Judge, Family
Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad (for short, the
'Family Court') in O.P.No.1541 of 2013.
3. The impugned judgment dated 13.06.2015 is one which has
been passed on a petition filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the 'Act of 1955') seeking
dissolution of the marriage between the husband and wife that took
place on 09.04.2010 and also seeking for permanent alimony of
Rs.2,00,00,000/-. Vide the impugned judgment, the Family Court
allowed the petition by dissolving the marriage between the husband
and wife dated 09.04.2010 both on the ground of cruelty and
desertion and at the same time granted a permanent alimony of
Rs.50,00,000/- with Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the petition to be
paid within three months.
4. It is this judgment and decree which is under challenge in both
these appeals.
5. Heard Ms. K. Abhilasha, party-in-person in Family Court
Appeal No.266 of 2015 and Mr. M.V. Praveen Kumar, learned
counsel for the husband in Family Court Appeal No.300 of 2015.
6. When the matters were taken up for hearing, the appellants in
both the appeals make a statement that both of them are not
questioning the first part of the order so far as allowing of the
petition and dissolving the marriage between the two. However, the
wife's appeal is on the awarding of Rs.50,00,000/- towards
permanent alimony and the husband's appeal is contending that in
fact no strong case for grant of alimony has been made out at all and
therefore the impugned judgment needs to be sustained only so far
as the dissolution of marriage is concerned without awarding any
alimony.
7. As far as the first appeal i.e. Family Court Appeal No.266 of
2015 is concerned, it was contended by the wife that the Family
Court failed to duly appreciate the status, the financial position, the
luxurious standard of living and wealth and properties that the
husband and his family members enjoy and possess and in a
mechanical manner has reached to the conclusion of the wife being
entitled a permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/-. In support of her
contentions, the wife drew the attention of this Bench to the various
documents that she had brought on record. Highlighting the
expenditure statement of the husband, the bank statement of the
husband and the amount of money which was transferred from one
account to the other family members, according to the wife by itself
would reflect the paying capacity of the husband. In addition, the
wife also produced the encumbrance certificate to show the
properties that were there in the family of the husband. Based upon
all these documents and strongly relying upon them, the wife prayed
for enhancement of the alimony amount from Rs.50,00,000/- to
Rs.2,00,00,000/-. In fact, the wife in the course of her deliberations
also said that the said claim of alimony was made in an O.P. that
was filed as early as in the year 2013 and now with the efflux of time
of more than a decade, the wife should be awarded even more
alimony than what has been claimed by her in the claim petition.
8. As regards the other appeal i.e. Family Court Appeal No.300 of
2015 filed by the husband questioning awarding of Rs.50,00,000/-
towards permanent alimony is concerned, the learned counsel
appearing for the husband strongly contended that the order/
judgment dated 13.06.2015 to the extent of awarding Rs.50,00,000/-
as permanent alimony is highly irrational. According to the learned
counsel appearing for the husband, a bare perusal of the impugned
order would reveal that except for the operative paragraph i.e.
paragraph No.8 of the impugned judgment where there is one-line
order of granting permanent alimony, there is no discussion
whatsoever on the part of the Family Court justifying awarding of
permanent alimony.
9. It was also the contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the husband that the impugned judgment is per se bad for the
reason that the Family Court has not provided any reasons for
arriving at the said conclusion of granting of permanent alimony,
that too, to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-. It was the further contention
that there is no basis whatsoever on the basis of which Family Court
has arrived at the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. In fact, the learned
counsel for the husband contended that it was brought before the
notice of the Family Court that meanwhile the husband had lost his
employment and had no source of income left. Rather he had
reached the state of bankrupt which again has not been properly
appreciated by the Family Court and has erroneously granted an
amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and prayed for setting aside of the same.
In the alternative, it was also argued by the learned counsel for the
husband that since there is no justification, reasons and basis given
by the Family Court, the High Court may consider remanding the
matter for fresh adjudication only so far as awarding of the alimony
is concerned or to decide as to what would be the suitable amount of
permanent alimony. In the process the parties would also get a
chance to produce fresh documentary proof in respect of their
respective claims.
10. Having heard the contentions put forth by the two appellants,
the admitted factual matrix are that the two appellants got married
on 09.04.2010 and in fact in a short period of time itself the marital
relationship went into rough feathers and there were host of
allegations and counter allegations made on either side. There were
also a series of litigations between the two which had crept up in
between and some of which have also travelled up till the stage of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Meanwhile, in the year 2013, O.P.No.1541
of 2013 was filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of
1955 seeking for dissolution of the marriage and for grant of
permanent alimony of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. It is this petition which
stood allowed and is under challenge in these two appeals.
11. The Family Court has allowed the petition so far as dissolution
of the marriage is concerned. As far as the permanent alimony is
concerned, though there was a claim of Rs.2,00,00,000/-, the Family
Court awarded an alimony of Rs.50,00,000/-. The impugned
judgment is an ex-parte judgment so far as the husband is
concerned, as could be seen, in spite of proper service upon the
husband where the service was effected through the consulate with
an acknowledgement also received from the consulate, the husband
chose not to contest the case and left it to be decided ex-parte.
12. Undisputedly, the husband is working in United States of
America. He has done his graduation in engineering in United States
of America and thereafter has got an employment there and is
relatively well placed as would be evident from the documents
brought on record. The fact that in spite of proper service upon the
husband he chose not to contest the case forces this Bench to draw
a strong inference that somewhere deep in the mind he too was
wanting the relief of dissolution of marriage to be awarded and in the
process if he was to pay certain amount of money towards
permanent alimony it was though not pleaded and contested,
appears to have been acceptable to him. Similarly, as regards the
case of the wife seeking for permanent alimony, though she referred
to series of documents brought on record in the present appeals. But
on a query being put to her, she candidly accepted the fact that
these documents were one which she could obtain only much after
the impugned judgment has been passed by the Family Court. There
is also an admission on her part that these documents have not been
marked before the Family Court. In the absence of which the finding
arrived at by the Family Court awarding a permanent alimony of
Rs.50,00,000/- cannot under any circumstances be termed to be on
the lower side, inappropriate or without proper appreciation of the
materials on record.
13. Now considering the claim for enhancement of the amount
from Rs.50,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,00,000/-, even taking into
consideration the documents that have been brought on record,
though they have not been marked or produced before the Family
Court but it also is not sufficient enough to establish that the
husband has a paying capacity of Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards
permanent alimony or for that matter the wife having made out a
strong case for awarding of Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards permanent
alimony.
14. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion
that both the appeals are devoid of merits calling for an interference
either for enhancement of the alimony amount or for that matter
quashing of alimony amount.
15. The two appeals therefore deserve to be and are accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
___________________________
SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J
Date: 25.06.2024
GSD
