Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bench: JUSTICE S.K. Gangele & D.K. Paliwal
Indu Kushwah Vs. Manoj Singh Kushwah On 14 May 2013
Law Point:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty — Dissolution of marriage — Appellant-wife committed cruelty within purview of provision of Section 13(1)(ia) of H.M. Act — Leaving matrimonial house by wife frequently and on being asked by husband giving threatening for lodging report, certainly comes within purview of cruelty — Beating given to husband by wife certainly comes within purview of cruelty — Husband-respondent compelled to leave his parents house to avoid unpleasant happening on account of acts of his wife — Appellant-wife levelled allegations against parents of husband for committing cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demand — Even husband levelled false allegations against character of wife amounting to cruelty — Matrimonial bond between parties wrecked beyond hope of salvage —Public interest and interest of all concerned lies in recognition of fact and to declare defunct de jure what is defunct de facto — Trial Court rightly dissolved marriage between parties by granting decree of divorce.
JUDGEMENT
1. Appellant-wife has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 266A/2009 H.M.A. on 6.1.2011, whereby decree of divorce has been granted in favour of respondent-husband.
2. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pleading that his marriage with the appellant-wife was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites on 18.5.1995. After marriage on the very first night, appellant told the respondent that she was not ready to marry with him because she in love of one Pinki Gurjar and wanted to marry with him. Despite insistence by the respondent, appellant did not allow him to have sexual intercourse. It is further pleaded that after 8 months of marriage on 18th January, 1996 the appellant gave birth to a male child. When the respondent asked, appellant replied that child is of Pinki Gurjar. It is further pleaded that father of the respondent is a bank officer and have a reputation in the society, therefore, the respondent did not disclose the above fact to anybody. It is further pleaded that appellant used to leave her matrimonial home without seeking any permission and used to return after 6-6 hours. On being asked, the appellant used to say that she is a modern girl and if any interference is made, she will lodge a report. The appellant used to talk to some unknown boys for hours on mobile phone. When objected, she used to quarrel with the respondent. It is further stated that once appellant threw hot tea on the face of the respondent and used to give threat of throwing acid on respondent. On 24.11.2008 father of the appellant and appellant gave threatening that appellant is not willing to live with the respondent and asked 2/3rd of his salary and two rooms along with latrine, bathroom and kitchen in the house. Appellant is not discharging her matrimonial obligations for the last 12 years and behaving with cruelty with the respondent. By amendment it has been pleaded that wife has made false allegations against father and mother of the respondent that father-in-law used to say her mother-in-law that respondent is not his son and also that mother-in-law remained out of home for hours at late night with some persons. Due to the conduct of mother-in-law, the reputation of appellant has been tarnished in the society. It is pleaded that due to these unfounded and wild allegations against the character of his mother, respondent feels humiliated and in such circumstances it is not possible for the respondent to live with the appellant. It is prayed that their marriage be dissolved.
3. Appellant-wife denied the allegations levelled against her and stated that she does not know Pinki Gurjar. She belongs to a reputed family. She never told that she loves Pinki Gurjar and child is born to her from Pinki Gurjar. It is pleaded that respondent and his father are habitual drinker. Whenever quarrel took place between the father and mother of the respondent, father of the respondent used to say that respondent-Manoj is not his son. It is further stated that appellant never left the matrimonial home, but mother of the respondent had left the house and did not return up to late night. The respondent and his father threatened the appellant that if mother of the respondent did not return, she would be killed. It is further stated that at about 11.00 p.m. two persons came on motorcycle and left the mother of the respondent. When the appellant objected the conduct of mother-in-law to the respondent, then she was beaten. On 8.11.2008 mother of the respondent left the house with two unknown persons and came back after two hours. It is further pleaded that father of the respondent was having evil eye on her and also used to bring women in her matrimonial home for satisfying his lust. When appellant objected, then he replied that he has been retired from bank, therefore, he is free to lead his life in his own way. It is further stated that due to the conduct of the respondent and his parents, reputation of the parents and the appellant in the society has been tarnished and she feels humiliated. It is further stated that appellant is facing harassment and cruelty at the hands of the respondent and his parents and despite this, she is discharging her matrimonial obligations. Respondent has filed this petition on false grounds. Therefore, the petition be dismissed.
4. Learned Trial Court holding that the appellant-wife has committed cruelty, granted the decree of divorce. Being dissatisfied, the appellant-wife has preferred this appeal.
5. Assailing the findings regarding cruelty, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that learned Trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and material on record and lost sight of the fact that the allegation of cruelty has been made after 13 years of marriage. Learned Trial Court failed to consider that the respondent himself has made false allegation that appellant gave birth to a child which is born from another person. The cruelty committed by the respondent and his father towards the appellant has not been taken into consideration. It is prayed that judgment and decree be set aside and petition be dismissed.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. There is no scope for any interference by this Court.
7. It is not disputed that marriage was solemnized on 18.5.1995 and appellant gave birth to a son, namely Harshvardhan.
8. The respondent has filed the petition on the ground of cruelty. Cruelty is not defined under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the concept of cruelty in the matter of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, I (2006) DMC 489 (SC)=128 (2006) DLT 360 (SC)=III (2006) SLT 43=II (2006) CLT 100 (SC)=AIR 2006 SC 1675, as under:
“4 …….The word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(l)(i-a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the inquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be inquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill-treatment.
50. In the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, reported in AIR 1994 SC 710, this Court had occasion to examine the concept of ‘mental cruelty’. This Court observed as under:
“16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be decided in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.”
55. This Court, in the case of Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2582, defined cruelty as under:
“21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subject to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other.”
In Samar Ghose v. Jaya Ghose, I (2007) DMC 597 (SC)=IV (2007) SLT 76, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. The concept of cruelty defers from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family, and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious belief, human values and their value system. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any strait-jacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law pertaining to cruelty, it is to be scrutinized in the case in hand whether respondent has proved the cruelty. It is pertinent to mention that the main instance of mental cruelty alleged by the respondent-husband that appellant-wife leading an adulterous life has not been found proved by the learned Trial Court. The other instances of cruelty alleged are as under:
(1) Appellant-wife used to remain out of the matrimonial home for 6-6 hours. On being asked, she used to give threat that she will lodge a false report and once she left the matrimonial home leaving her son aged about one and half years.
(2) Appellant-wife used to talk with some unknown persons for hours in the odd hours of the night and when asked by the respondent, she used to quarrel with him.
(3) Appellant-wife threw hot tea on the face of the respondent six months prior to filing of this petition and used to give threat of throwing acid on him.
(4) Appellant-wife after giving birth to a son, refused to have sexual intercourse and used to sleep in a separate room.
(5) Appellant-wife has beaten him by means of bat on 28.2.2010.
(6) Appellant-wife gave beating on 23.3.2010 at about 10.30 a.m. when the respondent about to leave the house to attend his duties.
(7) Respondent was compelled to leave the house of his parents.
(8) Appellant-wife made false allegations against the character of respondent’s mother and father.
Instance No. l
10. Manoj (AW-1) has stated that Indu used to leave his house for about 6-6 hours without his permission. When he asked, she used to say that he has no right to ask. She is a modern girl and if he made any interference, she will lodge a report and get him arrested. He further stated that once she left the house leaving her son aged one and half years. Brother and mother of Indu threatened him that if Indu is not traced, he would be killed. Thereafter, Indu met to her brother Dhiru, who took her to Gohad. Thereafter, Indu came to Gwalior. This conduct of Indu caused a mental cruelty to him.
11. Yogendra (AW-2) father of Manoj, supported the statement of Manoj. Arvind Singh (AW-3) says that after marriage Indu used to remain out of her matrimonial home. On account of it, quarrel used to took place between Manoj and Indu. He further stated that once Indu left her matrimonial home leaving her son aged one and half years.
12. Indu (NAW-1) stated that she never left her matrimonial home leaving her son alone. Indu has not rebutted the fact that she used to leave her matrimonial home for six hours and on being asked, she used to threat that she would lodge a report. The statement of Manoj has also not been challenged in his cross-examination.
13. Learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention towards the admission made by Arvind Singh (AW-3) in para-14 of his cross-examination admitting that son of Indu is residing with Indu and she never left her son. It may be mentioned that this admission has been made in another context, therefore, in view of this statement, the testimony of Manoj cannot be held unreliable. Thus, leaving the matrimonial house by wife frequently and on being asked by husband giving threatening for lodging the report, certainly comes within the purview of cruelty.
Instance No. 2.
14. Manoj (AW-1) deposed that Indu used to talk with some unknown boys on mobile phone in the odd hours of night. On being asked, she used to quarrel with him. Yogendra (AW-2) has corroborated the testimony of Manoj. Indu says that her husband has levelled false allegation that she used to talk with unknown boys on mobile phone. She has never threatened to lodge report against her husband and in-laws.
15. Manoj (AW-1) and Yogendra Singh (AW-2) in their statement have not specified any particular date when Indu had talked with unknown boys. No call details have been brought on record to prove this fact. Even the mobile number by which Indu used to talk with unknown boys has also not been mentioned. Therefore, testimony of Manoj and Yogendra in this respect does not inspire confidence.
Instance No. 3.
16. Manoj (AW-1) deposed that Indu has thrown hot tea on his face. She also used to give threat of throwing acid on him. In para-9 he states that this incident took place six months prior to filing of this petition. Yogendra Singh (AW-2) has supported the statement of Manoj. Indu Kushwaha (NAW-1) states that Manoj has falsely stated that she had thrown hot tea on his face and she has given threat to him. Manoj (AW-1) has denied the suggestion that Indu has not thrown hot tea on his face. It may be mentioned that this petition has been filed by Manoj on 28.11.2008. The incident of throwing hot tea stated to be taken place six this months prior to filing of this petition, however, no report has been lodged by Manoj. Therefore, the testimony of Manoj and Yogendra in this respect does not inspire confidence of the Court.
Instance No. 4.
17. Manoj has stated that after giving birth to a son, he and Indu used to sleep on separate beds in the same room. Indu (NAW-1) has stated that Manoj had sexual intercourse till filing of this petition. She is residing separately since 11.9.2009. Manoj Singh in para-22 of his cross-examination has denied the suggestion that till filing of this petition he, Indu and his son were residing jointly. In the month of September, he and Indu started residing in separate rooms. It is noteworthy that this petition has been filed in the month of November and Manoj and Indu started residing in separate rooms in the month of September. Had Indu refused to have sexual intercourse after giving birth to child in the year 1996, why Manoj kept mum and did not launch any proceeding for restitution of his conjugal rights? In view of this, the statement of Manoj appears to be false and this instance of cruelty is not proved.
Instance No. 5.
18. Manoj Singh stated that on 28.2.2010 in the noon he saw Indu with some unknown boy at Achleshwar. He told this incident to his son. When he returned back at 10.30 p.m., Indu has beaten him by means of bat, as a result of which, he received injury in the right hand and lodged report at Police Station University. Yogendra Singh has supported this statement of Manoj. Indu (NAW-1) has stated that false allegation of beating has been levelled against her. Ex.P/1, the carbon copy of the report, lodged by Manoj Singh, supports the statement of Manoj.
19. Manoj Singh in para 39 has denied the suggestion that on 28.2.2010 he and his father gave beating to Indu and the neighbours assembled there. It may be mentioned that no such allegation has been made in the written statement filed by Indu.
20. In view of the statement of Manoj Singh, Yogendra and report (Ex.P/1), we find it proved that on 28.2.2010 at about 10.30 p.m. appellant gave beating to Manoj. Beating given to husband by wife certainly comes within the purview of cruelty.
Instance No. 6.
21. Manoj Singh deposed that on 22.3.2010 at about 10.30 a.m. when he was leaving his house to attend his job, Indu came carrying Kutni (piece of wood commonly used in the houses for washing clothes) and beat him on his nose. He has lodged the report immediately. Yogendra Singh (AW-2) has corroborated the above statement.
22. Arvind Singh (AW-3) says that Indu has beaten Manoj several times. Manoj sustained injury on his nose.
23. Indu (NAW-1) has denied that she has beaten her husband by means of Kutni.
24. Manoj Singh has filed a carbon copy of the report (Ex.P/2) lodged by him at Police Station, University.
25. The testimony of Manoj Singh is corroborated by Yogendra Singh and Arvind Singh as well as by Ex.P/2, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Manoj. Thus, it is proved that on 22.3.2010 at about 10.30 a.m. Indu gave beating to her husband by means of Kutni. This act tantamount to cruelty.
Instance No. 7.
26. According to Manoj, the conduct of Indu and threats given by her and her parents may cause harm to him and his parents, therefore, he left the house of his father and started residing in a rented room from 25.3.2010. Yogendra Singh says that due to fear, his son Manoj has left his house and started residing in a rented house. Arvind Singh (AW-3) says that Manoj has started residing separately.
27. Indu (NAW 1) has stated that Manoj is residing at 39, Saraswati Nagar, Behind A.G. Office, Gwalior. In para 14 she has stated that she is residing separately from her husband since September, 2009. In para 20 Indu has stated that she is residing separately since March, 2010. According to Indu, her husband has left the house since then. Thus, from this statement, the testimony of Manoj, Yogendra and Arvind is corroborated and we find it proved that since March, 2010, Manoj has left the house of his father and started residing in a rented house. It is common knowledge that no one would like to leave the house where he is residing with his parents as well as his wife unless compelled to do so. In the background of what we have seen above, we think that Manoj Singh compelled to leave his parents house to avoid unpleasant happenings on account of acts of his wife. Thus, we hold that compelling husband to leave his parents house amounts to cruelty.
Instance No. 8.
28. Manoj Singh says that in written statement submitted by Indu false allegations against his mother who is aged 63 years has been levelled that some persons came to bring her and his mother went with them and returned at about 2.00 a.m. He further deposed that Indu has also made false allegation that his father keep evil eye on her. In the written statement also, it is falsely alleged that his father always says that he is not his son.
29. Yogendra (AW-1) has stated that Indu has levelled false allegation that Manoj is not his son. Indu has also made false allegation that on 22.3.2010 his wife went with some anti-social elements and came back at 2.00 a.m. His wife is aged 63 years. Due to allegations made by Indu, he has been defamed in the society.
30. Indu (NAW-1) says that she has been harassed because she stopped her father-in-law from drinking liquor and mother-in-law to leave the house in the odd hours. Her father-in-law used to say unpleasant things regarding Manoj and used to give filthy abuses.
31. From the perusal of the written statement filed by Indu, it appears that in para 5, it is pleaded that her father-in-law and husband used to drink. Her father-in-law keeps a evil eye on her. It is also pleaded that whenever quarrel took place between Yogendra and his wife, Yogendra used to say that Manoj is not his son. In para 9 it is stated that her mother-in-law left the house and did not come back up to late night. It is further stated that at about 11 p.m. two persons came with her mother-in-law and left her. By amendment, paras 8A, 9A and 10A have been added, in which similar allegations have been repeated. Not only this, in para 8A, it is claimed that whatever pleaded in paras 5, 6 and 7 is absolutely true. The appellant has not examined any witness to prove the allegations levelled against the character of her father-in-law and mother-in-law. The mother- in-law of the appellant is aged about 63 years and appellant has admitted in para 20 that that all the three sons and daughter of her mother-in-law are married. Had there been any substance in these allegations, there was no reason for not pleading the allegations pleaded in paras 5, 6 and 7 in the proceeding initiated by her under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to mention that Indu has admitted in para 20, that mother-in-law of appellant is aged about 63 years and father-in-law is aged about 66 years. In such circumstances, all the allegations prima facie appear to be false. We have no scintilla of doubt that the uncalled for allegations are bound to create mental agony and anguish in the mind of husband.
32. It may be mentioned that not only the appellant has levelled allegations against the character of parents of the respondent, but also levelled allegations against the respondent and his parents for committing cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Appellant-wife has admitted that she has filed proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against her husband on 23.5.2009. She further admitted that she has also lodged a complaint for committing domestic violence in the year 2009 and in the month of March or April, 2010 she has filed a private complaint under Section 498A of IPC against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and Jeth. Indu has further admitted that the service of summon in the private complaint under Section 498A of IPC has been effected when her husband and father-in-law attended the Court proceeding in the case of domestic violence and got arrested them. All these proceedings have been initiated by the appellant after Manoj has filed the divorce petition. Indu (NAW-1) in para 15 has categorically admitted that before filing the private complaint under Section 498A of the IPC she had lodged complaint to the S.P. and on inquiry it was found by the police that no demand of dowry was made. Therefore, no action was taken on her complaint. Thus, it seems that the appellant is determined to see that respondent should not live in peace.
33. The learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance in the judgment rendered in the matter of Kamal Singh v. Smt. Mamta Bai, 2005 (1) MPJR 24 (SN), submitted that filing of FIR and complaint does not constitute cruelty. In the instant case, appellant has lodged the report and when after inquiry police found that demand of dowry was not made, then appellant filed private complaint. Appellant has initiated these proceedings much after filing of this petition for divorce. Appellant remained silent for about more than ten years. In such circumstances, we are not at all impressed with the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant.
34. In view of aforesaid analysis, the instance Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of cruelty pleaded by the respondent are fully proved. False and wild allegations against the character of mother-in-law and father-in-law, make it graphically clear that she had really humiliated and caused mental cruelty. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, agony and frustration of the husband is obvious. It can be stated with certitude that the cumulative effect of the evidence brought on record clearly establish a sustained attitude of causing humiliation and calculated torture on the part of the wife to make the life of the husband miserable. The respondent felt humiliated both in private and in public life. Undoubtedly it created a dent in the reputation of entire family of the respondent which is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. It is extremely delicate and cherished value this side of the grave. Thus, it would not be out of place to state that brain and the bones of the respondent must have felt the chill of humiliation. Cruel behaviour of the appellant-wife has frozen the emotions and snuffed out the bright candle of feeling of the respondent. We have no scintilla of doubt that the appellant has committed cruelty which comes within the purview of provision of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
35. It is no doubt true that the respondent-husband has also levelled allegation against the character of the appellant but failed to establish. This also amounts to cruelty against the appellant.
36. From the above analysis, it is abundantly clear that the matrimonial bond between the parties had been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage and public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto. Dissolution of marriage will relieve both sides of pain and anguish. In our considered opinion, the learned Trial Court has rightly dissolved the marriage between the parties by granting decree of divorce.
37. The learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the decision rendered in the matter of K. Sriniwas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, I (2013) DMC 458 (SC)=II (2013) SLT 338=2013 (2) Supreme 80, has submitted that the learned Trial Court has not granted permanent alimony while granting decree of divorce. Appellant-wife has stated that she has no source of income. We are alive to the plight of the appellant-wife. In our opinion, the appellant-wife is entitled to get permanent alimony.
38. Permanent alimony is to be granted taking into consideration the social status, conduct of the parties, the way of living of the spouse, the financial capacity of the husband, social needs of the parties, other obligations of the husband and such other aspect. In Vinny Parmavir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, II (2011) DMC 754 (SC)=V (2011) SLT 533=AIR 2011 SC 2748, while dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, it has been observed by the Apex Court that while granting permanent alimony, the Court is required to take note of the fact that amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to live 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.
39. Manoj Singh has stated that he is working in a bank as a clerk. In para 30 he says that he has completed 12 years of service and he is a permanent employee.
40. Considering the status of the parties, their social background, the needs of the appellant-wife, financial status of the respondent, prevailing prices of the essential commodities, etc., we fix the permanent alimony at Rs. 7,50,000.
41. In view of the foregoing discussions, we affirm the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and dismiss this appeal. However, the respondent is directed to deposit Rs. 7,50,000 in the Trial Court as permanent alimony in three instalments at the interval of three months. If the respondent fails to deposit the same, he would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum on balance amount. Parties to bear their cost. Advocate fee as per schedule.
Decree be drawn up accordingly.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment