Soumya Sucharita Swain vs Diptiman Beura

Mr. Parija, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-wife. He submits, on dissolving the marriage by impugned judgment dated 9th December, 2021 only maintenance was directed at ₹20,000/- per month and ₹10,000/- as litigation cost. There is a son from the marriage. The direction is wholly insufficient. Hence, his client has preferred appeal.

He submits further, dowry articles under exhibit-V along with admitted amount of ₹1,20,000/- are also to be returned. Without prejudice he submits, dissolution of the marriage was on erroneous appreciation of facts. His client was never cruel to the respondent-husband. On the contrary she was subjected to cruelty.

Mr. Padhy, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-husband and submits, the direction for maintenance was given on erroneous appreciation of a salary slip taken in isolation, which  included  ₹60,000/-  as  incentive.  The  salary  slip  (exhibit-C) gave particulars of two months’ earnings. It is clear that his client was earning a little less than ₹20,000 per month. He thereafter lost his job.

He submits further, at trial signature in acknowledgement alleged to have been made by his client’s father, was not proved. Only ₹1,00,000/- was admitted to have been received by his client, which he will repay. He submits still further, arrear interim maintenance have been paid. The Family Court correctly found on cruelty. In the circumstances there be modification in appeal to direct permanent alimony.

Having heard the parties we think fit for respondent-husband to tender ₹20,00,000/- by instrument drawn in favour of appellant-wife, to put an end of all disputes between the parties. Said amount will include ₹2,00,000/-  already deposited  by respondent-husband. Mr. Padhy prays for adjournment to obtain instruction. Mr. Parija submits, short date be given.

List on 28th March, 2024.

………………………