Swapnarani Rout vs Saroj @ Sarojkanta Rout

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard Mr.A.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MATA No.03 of 2021 and for the respondent in MATA No.164 of 2019 and Mr.B.Rout, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in MATA No.03 of 2021 and for the appellant in MATA No.164 of 2019.

Both the appeals are taken up together as those appeals emanate from the same judgment dated 26.09.2019, delivered in Civil Proceeding No.972 of 2014 by the Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara. By the said judgment, the marriage that was subsisting between the parties has been dissolved and consequent thereof, the decree of divorce has been granted. At the time of passing the decree of divorce, the Judge, Family Court has determined the permanent alimony at Rs.2.00 Lakhs, to be paid by the respondent in MATA No.03 of 2021 and the appellant in MATA No.164 of 2019. The appellant in MATA No.03 of 2021 has challenged the said judgment questioning the determination of the permanent alimony. According to the said appellant, the alimony what has been determined by the Judge, Family Court, is inadequate for a decent living. On the other hand, the appellant in MATA No.164 of 2019 has challenged the quantum of the said alimony for being exorbitantly high. It may be noted here that none of the appellants in MATA No.03 of 2021 and MATA No.164 of 2019 has challenged the decree of divorce.

Mr.Rout, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MATA No.164 of 2019 has submitted that the Judge, Family Court has observed that the monthly income of the appellant in MATA No.164 of 2019 is approximately Rs.7,500/-, as the said appellant is a daily-labourer. Mr.Rout referred to the observation of the Judge, Family Court that the income of the appellant in MATA No.164 of 2019 “must not be less than Rs.7500/-” per month in the order dated 28.3.2017 passed in the Interlocutory Application being No.169 of 2014 (filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 arising out of Criminal Proceeding No.838 of 2014).

From the other side, Mr.A.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MATA No.03 of 2021 has contended that the Judge, Family Court has recorded that from the evidence of R.W.1 (wife), it has come to the fore that how far her in-law is a cultivator and her husband is managing a cloth store under the name and style of Maa Durga Bastralaya. According to Mr.Mishra, learned counsel the monthly income of the appellant in MATA No.164 of 2019 has not been determined by the Judge, Family Court. That assessment is intermediate in nature and hence, cannot be treated as final. Mr. Rout learned counsel has referred to the order dated 28.03.2017 passed in I.A.No.169 of 2014 (arising from Criminal Proceeding No.838 of 2014) to us. The conclusive observation is available therein that income of the husband would not be less than Rs.7,500/- per month.

In such circumstances, we can indulge to do some guess work. We can safely assume that the appellant in MATA No.164 of 2019 has the monthly income of Rs.15,000/- per month. On such basis and on considering the age of the appellant in MATA No.03 of 2021, we direct the appellant in MATA No.164 of 2019 (the husband) to pay a lump - sum permanent alimony of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the respondent-wife, within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that the day when the said amount on account of permanent alimony will be paid, the appellant in MATA No.164 of 2019 will not be required to pay any further maintenance and for the purpose this order be placed before all the Courts where the proceedings regarding the payment of maintenance between the parties are pending. We need to reiterate that till the payment of Rs.5.00 lakhs, as determined is fully paid by the appellant in MATA No.164 of 2019, he shall continue to pay the maintenance allowance and such payment shall not be adjusted against the sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs which is the permanent alimony.

In the result, the appeal being MATA No.03 of 2021 is allowed and the appeal being MATA No.164 of 2019 is dismissed. Registry is directed to prepare the decree accordingly. L.C.Rs, if any, are still lying in the Registry, be returned forthwith.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

……………………………