Ram Dayal Goyal vs Smt. Sandhya

V.K. Bist, J

This first appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2011 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in case no.57 of 2005,

whereby the said court has allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13(1)/25/27 of Hindu Marriage Act and has dissolved

the marriage between the parties. By the same judgment and order, appellant-husband has been directed to pay Rs.50,000/-to the respondent-wife

towards Stridhan and an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as permanent alimony and further a sum of Rs.2500/- per month in favour of minor daughter till

attaining age of majority.

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the respondent-wife filed a suit for a decree of divorce against the appellant-husband in the court of

Judge, Family Court, Haridwar on the ground of cruelty stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.12.1996 at Haridwar as

per Hindu rituals. Before marriage, respondent was unmarried whereas the appellant was a widower. In the marriage, parents of respondent-wife

gave sufficient dowry viz. money, clothes, jewellery, etc. After marriage, the respondent started performing her matrimonial obligations but the

appellant-husband and his family members were dissatisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and they started committing Marpeet with the

respondent and also making demand of Rs.50,000/-. Respondent-wife tried to persuade the appellant, but to no avail, whereafter, the respondent left

the matrimonial house. On 20.10.1997, she gave birth to a girl child. Even thereafter, neither the appellant came to see the child nor gave any

maintenance. Due to cruel behaviour of the appellant, the respondent was constrained to file a complaint being complaint case no.599 of 1997 under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In the said case, the appellant did not appear before the court, despite service of notice upon him. The said case was decided

ex-parte against the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed recall application for setting aside the ex-parte order. The appellant also filed a suit being

Suit No.240 of 1997 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the court of District Judge, Sri Ganganahar, Rajasthan.

The respondent filed written statement in the suit and also filed an application u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, which application was allowed in favour

of the respondent-wife. Suit No.240 of 1997 was dismissed, whereafter, the appellant filed a suit being Suit No.363 of 1999 under Section 13 of Hindu

Marriage Act, in the same court. However, the appellant did not turn up in said proceedings at the subsequent stage. Said suit was accordingly

dismissed. The respondent alleged that neither the appellant-husband is ready to keep the respondent-wife along with minor daughter with him nor he

is ready to pay any maintenance.

The appellant-husband contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement, he admitted his marriage with the respondent-wife

and also birth of a girl child out of said wedlock. However, he denied rest of the allegations made in the plaint. With regard to income, he stated that

he is running a small grocery store.

On the basis of pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

i) Whether the appellant has committed cruelty with the respondent for demand of dowry and has deserted the respondent-wife since 1997 without

sufficient cause?

ii) Whether the respondent-wife is entitled to get permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- for maintenance of herself and her daughter on account of

permanent separation?

iii) Whether the respondent-wife is entitled to receive back the Stridhan given in the marriage under Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act from the

husband?

iv) If yes, to what extent the respondent is entitled for compensation?

After hearing the parties and upon perusal of entire evidence led by the parties, the trial court decided all the issues in favour of the respondent-wife

and by the impugned judgment and order, granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-wife on the ground of desertion for more than seven

years and cruelty at the hands of appellant-husband. The trial court also granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of Stridhan and also permanent

alimony to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

Learned counsel for the appellant-husband would submit that there are no chances for the parties to live under one roof and the appellant-husband

also does not wish to live with the respondent-wife and is not willing to keep the daughter with him. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband would,

however, submit that the learned Judge, Family Court, has committed illegality in granting permanent alimony in favour of the respondent-wife.

Learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar has recorded the findings issue-wise and has held that there was constant demand of dowry and mental

and physical harassment by the appellant-husband with the respondent-wife. Considering the financial status of the appellant-husband, permanent

alimony of Rs.6,00,000/- has also been granted by the court in favour of the respondent, which in the opinion of the court, is not exorbitant. Rather, in

our view, the amount under alimony is not appropriate, inasmuch as, in the present scenario, if the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is kept in a F.D.R. the

same would not yield interest more than 6% per annum which moderately comes to Rs.4,000/- per month.

In view of the above, we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. No

interference is, therefore, called for.

First appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.