Daily Archives: June 28, 2016

My Husband is impotent & wants unnatural sex. I’m ok 4 divorce as long as you enhance D alimony !! Madras HC Divorce & alimony

Woman seeking ONLY 2 crores alimony says her husband is characterless, has no respect for her feelings, is impotent and sought unnatural sex… She doesn’t seem to seek any punishment but JUST a sum of INR 2 crores !!

The problems “ablaa naari”, poor / pitiable women face is to be seen to be believed. Here is a woman who claims “….. …that there is no purpose of meaning in fighting the case against such a dubious and characterless person who doesn’t have any respect for his wife’s emotions and feelings. Therefore, the respondent agreeing for the decree of divorce but on the ground of impotency of the petitioner and his constant behaviour in forcing the respondent to have unnatural sexual relation with him which also amounts to cruelty..”

The Hon HC also notices that “…  24. The respondent after the entire evidence was over preferred to file an I.A.No.1596/13 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming permanent alimony of Rs.2 crores …”

The FC grants her divorce & 10 lakhs. The HC grants her 15 lakhs !! ……

It is pertinent to note that the husband has filed IT returns showing his income as just Rs 3 Lakhs per annum, still he is asked to pay Rs. 15 Lakhs as aliomony, though the marriage survived just 2 years or so

====================================

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:  23.02.2016

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

C.M.A.No.3322 of 2013

Manisha K.Kawad @ Lakshmi        …Appellant
Vs
Tarun I.Tater                … Respondent

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Central Act No.66 of 1984) against the quantum of alimony made in O.P.No.1182 of 2010 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Chennai, dated 29.07.2013.

For appellant     …    Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan
For respondent     …    Mrs.K.Bhavatharani

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUDHAKAR, J.)

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife against the quantum of alimony made in O.P.No.1182 of 2010, dated 29.07.2013 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Chennai and sought enhancement of the same.

  1. The appellant/wife and the respondent/husband got married on 24.11.2008 and thereafter, during March 2010, the respondent/husband filed O.P.No.1182 of 2010 before the Family Court, Chennai, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The wife filed counter and also M.P.No.668 of 2010 seeking remedies under the provisions of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act viz., Protection order and also Monetary Relief. The trial court, by order dated 30.09.2011, allowed the said petition and directed the husband to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife and also directed him to return back the Shridhana articles, silver and other belongings of the wife. Subsequently, both sides contested the matter and the trial court, after taking into consideration the evidence, both oral and documentary let in on both sides, passed an order dated 29.07.2013, ordering dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and the appellant/wife was granted a permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- towards maintenance from the respondent/husband.
  2. The allegations and counter allegations raised on both sides have been discussed and findings have been given by the court below in paragraph Nos.24 to 28 as under:-

  24. The respondent after the entire evidence was over preferred to
file an I.A.No.1596/13 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act
claiming permanent alimony of Rs.2 crores and para-6 of the
application is deserved to be reproduced “… The respondent now
understands and realize that there is no purpose of meaning in
fighting the case against such a dubious and characterless person who
doesn’t have any respect for his wife’s emotions and feelings.
Therefore, the respondent agreeing for the decree of divorce but on
the ground of impotency of the petitioner and his constant behaviour
in forcing the respondent to have unnatural sexual relation with him
which also amounts to cruelty..”

  25. The respondent/wife herself realises that it is not possible
for her to live with the petitioner. She is agreeing for granting for
divorce on the ground of impotency. But she has not filed any counter
claim u/s.23(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The above averments has
been made in the petition filed for permanent alimony. The Relief of
divorce cannot be granted by matrimonial court by consent or
agreement by the parties except by filing Mutual Petition u/s.13(B)
of the Hindu Marriage Act by Mutual consent. Therefore one thing that
is obvious in the aforesaid application is, the marriage has broken
irretrievably with no possibility of the parties living together
again and therefore there is no purpose in compelling both the
parties living together and the best course is to dissolve the
marriage by passing the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty so
that the parties could live peacefully in the remaining part of their
life.

  26. Point No.3 Permanent Alimony claimed by the wife in
I.A.1596/13.

The petitioner has filed Income Tax return showing his
recent income. The income tax return for the year 2010 and 2011 is
marked as Ex.P.16 wherein the gross total income was shown as
Rs.73,433/- and the I.T.Returns for the year 2011 and 2012 the gross
total income of the petitioner was Rs.3,98,702/- and after deduction
his total income was Rs.3,38,140/-. The petitioner in his counter in
I.A.1596/13 stated that he has been earning only Rs.3,00,090/-.
Average per year and he is depending upon his parents for all his
expenses and he further stated he willing to pay Rs.1,00,000/- only
as permanent alimony to the petitioner. Having regard to the number
of days living with the petitioner and acrimonious relationship
between the petitioners family and respondent’s family and the income
of the petitioner as well as the dependency towards his parents. I am
of the considered opinion that fixing a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as
permanent alimony in the facts and circumstances of the case.

  27. Stability in marital relationship cannot be forced through
legal sanctions. It can be ensured through creating an atmosphere of
fidelity, confidence and understanding between the spouses. In
marital matter, it is the attitude and the mind and the feeling that
count and no degree of the court can force a party to live together
against their will land pleasure. Taking the holistic view of the
incidents of cruelty proved by the petitioner, I am of the considered
opinion that the marital bond has been raptured beyond repair with no
chance of reunion. In short the marriage of the parties has become a
fiction and by refusing to sever the tie the law in such cases does
not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary,it shows scant
regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. The marriage is
merely a shell out of which the substance has gone.

  28. In view of the aforesaid discussions the points raised in the
case are answered as follows.

  Point No.1. The incidents alleged in the petition are within the
purview of cruelty u/s.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

  Point No.2. The wife is entitled to divorce on the ground of
cruelty in the facts and circumstances of the case.

  Point No.3. The petitioner is entitled for permanent alimony of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) towards maintenance from the husband.

  In the result O.P.1182/2010 is allowed and the marriage solemnized
between the petitioner and the respondent on 24th November 2008 at
YMCA, Purasaiwakkam, chennai-600 007 is dissolved by decree of
divorce on the ground of cruelty.

I.A.1596/13 in O.P.1182/10.

  In the result this petition is partly allowed and the respondent
is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to the
petitioner towards permanent maintenance and the said sum is to be
paid within two weeks

  1. As against the said order, the appellant/wife is before this court, seeking to enhance the permanent alimony to Rs.2 crores from Rs.10 lakhs.
  • Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife contended that the alimony of Rs.10 lakhs fixed by the court below is much below the standard of life of the respondent/husband and the annual gross total income derived by the trial court is not proper.

  • Ms.K.Bhavatharani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband pleaded that the court below after threadbare analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of Income Tax Returns filed by the respondent/husband for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 fixed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as permanent alimony and, therefore, the learned counsel justified the order of the court below.

  • We have perused the order dated 29.07.2013 passed by the court below and carefully considered the submissions made on both sides.

  • We are of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity or error in the said order granting permanent alimony. However, taking into consideration the plea made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife for enhancing the permanent alimony and also the submissions raised on the side of the respondent/husband, who is said to be facing financial difficulty and in order to bring a quietus to the issue, we deem it fit to modify the order of the court below as under:- “…The respondent/husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) to the appellant/wife towards permanent maintenance as against Rs.10 lakhs as granted by the court below…”

  • The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband stated that a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as ordered by the court below has already been paid by the respondent/husband to the wife. She further undertakes to pay the enhanced sum of Rs.5 Lakhs within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

  • Accordingly, the counsel for the respondent/husband is permitted to handover the Demand Draft for Rs.5 lakhs [Rupees Five Lakhs only] in favour of wife/appellant viz., Manisha K.Kawad @ Lakshmi, through the counsel appearing for appellant/wife.

  • It is open to the parties to resolve the other matrimonial discord between them in the manner known to law. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered on the above terms. No costs.

  • (R.S.,J.)       (S.V.N.,J.)

    23.02.2016

    Note:  Issue order copy on 17.03.2016

    R.SUDHAKAR, J.
    and
    S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

    nvsri

    To
    The Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

    C.M.A.No.3322 of 2013

    23.02.2016

    Having taken 1.25 crores I will NOT defame him thru social networking sites & electronic medium !! Mutual consent , P & H HC

    • 1 crore 25 lakhs for divorce.
    • Daughter to remain with father, so woman free to find next guy !
    • The fate of matrimony in India

    =============================================

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

    FAO No.1509 of 2015 (O&M)

    Date of Decision: 18.02.2016

    Amar Somany                                   …..Petitioner No.1
    And
    Prerna Sharma                                   ….Petitioner No.2

    CORAM:           HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
            HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

    Present:    Ms. Ritu Pathak, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Arora, Advocate for
    Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate  for petitioner No.1  with petitioner No.1 in person.
    Ms. S.P.S.Aulakh, Advocate for petitioner No.2 with petitioner No.2 in person.

    =============================================

    RAJIVE BHALLA, J (ORAL)

    Amar Somany, filed a petition for grant of a decree of divorce, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, on 31.01.2015. The appeal filed was pending when parties entered into a settlement and decided to dissolve their marriage by a written compromise (Annexure A-1) dated 07.08.2015, on the following terms and conditions:-

    “(i) That parties have agreed for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.
    (ii) The parties have agreed to withdraw the entire litigation if any pending in any court or before any other authority against each other.
    (iii) That the First Party shall pay Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore Twenty Five Lacs only) to the Second Party in the Court against full and final settlement of claims.
    (iv) That as submitted above, the First Party shall pay Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore Twenty Five  Lacs only) to the Second Party in the Court towards full and final settlement of all claims regarding any Jewellery lying in the safe deposit box at SBBJ (Kath Mandi, Rewari), Clothes, Istridhan, gift articles and Maintenance amount i.e. of present, past and future alimony and towards any of her other claims in this respect whatsoever against First Party. Out o the total amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore Twenty Five Lacs only) the First Party shall pay Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs Fifty Thousand) through Demand Draft No.051913, dated 6.8.2015, HDFC Bank, to the Second Party after signing the Compromise Deed and other relevant documents to be filed in the Hon’ble High Court and the balance amount i.e. Rs.1,12,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lacs Fifty Thousand) shall be paid to the Second Party by way of Demand Draft at the time of final decision before this Hon’ble Court.
    (v) That the custody of the minor daughter namely Sara aged about 6 years shall remain with the First Party. The Second Party shall only be entitled to meet the child four times in a one year, as per the convenience of the child and as per mutual adjustments of both the parties. It has been decided that the Second Party will met the child for 3-4 hours on the day of the visit (i.e. for each visit). Furthermore, the Second Party shall not claim the custody of the child in future.
    (vi) That the Second Party shall not claim any other maintenance and shall not claim any right, title or interest in any manner in the moveable or immoveable property of the First Party.
    (vii) That the Second Party shall have no future interference in the education, social welfare and upbringing of the child and furthermore no direct or indirect contact shall be maintained by the Second Party with the child either by herself or through anyone else/relatives, except for the purpose of meeting the child as per Clause (v) above.
    (viii) That both the parties shall be bound to withdraw all the other criminal and civil cases pending against each other and their respective family members. Furthermore, they shall not initiate any litigation against each other and their family members in future and shall not defame through any means of communication and through social networking sites and electronic medium.”

    The parties thereafter filed CM No.16302-CII of 2015, for altering the original petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to a petition under Section 13-B of the Act. The application was allowed and the original petition was altered into a petition under Section 13-B of the Act on 17.08.2015.

    The separate statements of parties in first motion were also recorded, which read as follows:-

    “Statement of Mr.Amar Somany, son of Ashok Somany, resident of Flat No.1402, Tower No.15, Orchid Petals, Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon, on SA. My affidavit dated 07.08.2015 may be read as my statement in first motion.

    Statement of Prerna Sharma, daughter of Prem Kishore, wife of Amar Somany, R/o House No.1285, Sector-3, New Housing Board Colony, Rewari (1st Address), resident of H.No.R-69, Gali No.4, Phase-II, Model Town, New Delhi (IInd Address), on SA. My affidavit dated 07.08.2015 may be read as my statement in first motion.”

    A perusal of their respective affidavits reveal that the parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage on account of irreconcilable differences, settled permanent alimony, maintenance, past, present and future at Rs.1,25,00,000/-, to be paid in terms of the settlement and decided to pray for   dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

    The petition has come up for consideration after expiry of six months. Counsel for the parties and the parties, who are present, pray that there is no change in their view as they are still of the opinion that it is not possible for them to reside together as husband and wife and, therefore, statements of parties may be recorded in second motion and their marriage may be dissolved.

    The parties were directed to record statements in second motion.

    Statement of Amar Somany, petitioner No.1 recorded in second motion reads as under:-

    “I was married to Prerna Sharma on 03.10.2008 but on account of irreconcilable differences, I filed a petition for grant of a decree of divorce. The petition was, however, dismissed by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, on 31.01.2015. I filed the present appeal and during pendency of the appeal, we arrived at a settlement and executed a compromise deed. I acknowledge my signatures on compromise deed dated 07.08.2015. I have complied with all terms and conditions of the settlement. The petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been filed without collusion, coercion, mis-representation or fraud, pray that our marriage be dissolved by grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. I also handed over a demand draft, of the remaining amount i.e. Rs.1 crore to Ms.Prerna Sharma in Court today, in full and final settlement of all claims of maintenance, past, present or future or of permanent alimony. Our minor child Sara, as agreed between us, shall remain in my custody and guardianship and I shall have no objection to visitation rights as recorded in the settlement. I shall withdraw all cases/ applications/complaints whether made before a Court, quasi-judicial authority or any other department filed by me or my family members   against Prerna Sharma or her family members. I pray that our marriage be dissolved.”

    Statement of Prerna Sharma, petitioner No.2 recorded in second motion reads as follows:-

    “I was married to Amar Somany on 03.10.2008. My husband filed a petition for grant of a decree of divorce, which was dismissed, on 31.01.2015. He filed an appeal and during pendency of the appeal, we arrived at a settlement which was reduced into a compromise deed dated 07.08.2015. I acknowledge my signatures on the compromise deed. I have received an amount of Rs.1.25 crores in total (Rs.1 crore having been received today), in full and final settlement of all claims of maintenance, past, present or future of permanent alimony. I have also agreed that the custody and guardianship of our minor child Sara shall remain with Amar Somany, as recorded in settlement. I shall, however, be entitled to visitation rights as agreed. I shall withdraw all cases/applications/ complaints whether made before a Court, quasi-judicial authority or any other department filed by me or my family members against Amar Somani or his family members. I pray that our marriage be dissolved.”

    A demand draft bearing No.001280 amounting to Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs.One Crore only) has been handed over to Prerna Sharma, petitioner No.2.

    Counsel for the parties pray that as parties have resolved their dispute and agreed to part ways by mutual consent, the petition may be allowed and their marriage may be dissolved.

    We have heard counsel for the parties, perused averments in the petition, the affidavits filed in support thereof and statements recorded at first and second motion and the settlement.

    The parties were personally asked whether there is any possibility of their residing together but both parties emphatically ruled out any possibility of residing together.

    The parties stated that they have taken a conscious decision that as it is not possible for them to live together on account of irreconcilable differences, the best course for them is to part ways. We are satisfied that the parties have taken a conscious decision to dissolve their marriage as it is not possible for them to live together as husband and wife.

    In the absence of any malafide, coercion, misrepresentation or fraud, the petition is allowed and marriage between the parties is dissolved by grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The parties shall, however, remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement and perform their respective obligations as set out in the settlement. In case of any difficulty in the performance of any part of the settlement, the parties would be at liberty to approach this Court for further directions. Prerna Sharma has received a bank draft bearing No.001280 amounting to Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore only).

    A decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

    [ RAJIVE BHALLA ]
    JUDGE

    [ LISA GILL ]
    JUDGE

    18.02.2016