Jhunu Sarkar Kunda vs Bikash Kunda

Ajai Lamba, CJ

Smti Jhunu Sarkar Kunda, the wife has preferred this appeal in challenge to decision rendered in Title Suit (M) No.104/2016, titled Bikash Kunda

Vs. Jhunu Sarkar Kunda, rendred by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta dated 15th March, 2018.

It is apparent that respondent-husband preferred a petition for divorce. Vide the impugned judgment, the petition has been allowed. The marriage

between the parties has been dissolved.

Vide the judgment, the respondent-husband has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.8 lakhs in lump sum as permanent and future alimony.

We have heard Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.P. Das, learned counsel for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment was rendered on 15th March, 2018. The appeal under adjudication was

preferred beyond limitation. In the interregnum period, the respondent-husband got married. In such circumstance, the impugned judgment and decree

to the extent it directs dissolution of marriage has been accepted by the appellant. The only challenge is to the award of alimony in the sum of Rs.8

lakhs. It has been vehemently argued that the alimony is highly inadequate and the same be enhanced.

We have considered the contention of the learned counsel in context of the evidence brought on record of the Family Court by both the sides and

the reasons given by the Trial Court in awarding alimony in the sum of Rs.8 lakhs.

It has not been disputed even by the learned counsel for the appellant that no evidence was brought to the Court clearly indicating the income

assessment of the respondent-wife and the properties owned by him. Only a plea was taken that the respondent-husband has income of Rs.90,000/-

(Rupees Ninety Thousand) from all his sources.

In so far as salary is concerned, the appellant-wife admitted that it is in the sum of Rs.47,946/- per month.

In paragraph-12 of the impugned judgment, while dealing with Issue No.5, the Trial Court has taken into account the salary drawn by the

respondent-husband as a teacher in Higher Secondary School in the sum of Rs.42,946/- per month.

There was no other evidence available on record so as to guide the Trial Court to assess the exact amount of alimony payable to the wife.

In regard to assessment of alimony payable to the wife, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U. Sree Vs. U. Srinivas, while dealing with Civil

Appeal Nos.8927-8928 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 37449-37450 of 2012 and arising out of C.C. Nos.5877-5878/2012), decided on 11.12.2012,

has held in paragraph 33 (relevant portion) in the following terms :-

 “33. ……… Be it stated, while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematic

exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other

obligations. In Vinny Parmvir Parmar V. Parmvir Parmar MANU/SC/0842/2011 : (2011) 13 SCC 112, while dealing with the concept of

permanent alimony, this Court has observed that while granting permanent alimony, the Court is required to take note of the fact that the

amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life

she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of

the other party.

(emphasized by us)

We have considered the quantum of alimony determined by the Family Court in context of the evidence brought on record. It stands admitted that

the respondent-husband was earning merely Rs. 42,946/- per month while serving as a teacher. It is admitted case of the appellant wife that

respondent got remarried and, therefore, has a wife to support.

Considering various facts and circumstances of the case, we find alimony as determined by the Lower Court to be as per the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, referred to above.

We are also of the view that unless we find perversity in reading of the evidence; or some evidence that has not been considered by the Lower

Court, ordinarily the appellate court is not required to interfere in its appellate jurisdiction.

In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree in regard to grant of alimony is upheld. The

award of alimony in the sum of Rs.8 lakhs to the appellant wife is hereby upheld.

The appeal is dismissed. Let the alimony amount be paid within a period of three months from today.