Category Archives: divorce denied

Bombay HC: Pheras Around Burning Incense Sticks is Saptapadi u/Hindu Marriage Act

Bombay HC: Pheras Around Burning Incense Sticks is Saptapadi u/Hindu Marriage Act

2 days ago

May 10, 2018

In a recent case, the Bombay High Court while deciding a matrimonial case recognized a bundle of burning aggarbattis as “sacred fire” under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Brief facts of the case- In the case the Petitioner prayed for dissolution of marriage on the ground that he was married off to the respondent forcibly and without his consent. The Petitioner inter alia also alleged that the impugned marriage was liable to be annulled as the Saptapadi ceremony (taking seven rounds/steps around the sacred fire) had not been performed.

The Family Court in the case after examining the evidence placed on record came to the conclusion that the Appellant was unable to prove that the marriage with the Respondent was solemnized without his consent. The Family Court also came to the conclusion that the marriage solemnized between the Appellant and the Respondent could not annulled by decree of nullity and the Respondent was entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

The aggrieved appellant husband approached the High Court contending that the Saptapadi ceremony was not performed by taking 7 steps around the sacred fire as required under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore the marriage could never have been said to be completed between the Appellant and the Respondent.

According to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 a marriage is deemed complete and binding once the rites and ceremonies including the saptpadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire). Thus, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.

Bombay High Court’s Verdict

The Bombay High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and made the following observations in the case:

That the Priest who performed the marriage had categorically stated that a bundle of agarbatti was burnt and the Appellant and the Respondent had taken seven steps/pheras around it.

That what is a sacred fire has not been defined in the Act. The fact that there was a bundle of agarbattis that was burning and the Appellant and the Respondent took seven pheras around the said agarbattis is not disputed. This being the case, it would be enough to show that there was compliance of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

That the The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 itself mentions in section 7 as to what is Saptapadi viz. taking of seven steps by the bride-groom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire. The fact that seven pheras were taken around the bundle of burning aggarbattis and looking at the other evidence (such as photographs amongst other things) which clearly show that Sindoor was put by the Appellant on the Respondent and he has garlanded her- the requirements of a marriage as contemplated under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were duly complied with.

That merely because they took seven pheras around the burning aggarbattis did not mean that no seven pheras were taken around the sacred fire as contemplated under section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

— Read on www.vakilno1.com/legal-news/bombay-hc-pheras-around-burning-incense-sticks-saptapadi-hindu-law.html/amp

Wife left 12 years ago. All accused in DOWRY case DISCHARGED !! Still NO divorce for man!

husband-wife-quarrel

When I tell ppl that A MAN filing for divorce is taking a gamble and that could be costly and FUTILE, ppl just laugh at me !! Now guys tell me what this is ???

“…In his plea, the husband argued that since he and his wife had been living separately for the past 12 years, he should be allowed to end his marriage. ……”

“…On her part, the wife claimed she was harassed for dowry but HC found that everyone was discharged for lack of evidence by the trial court…”

No proof wife’s cruel, divorce plea junked

 

TNN | Sep 10, 2016, 01.02 AM IST

New Delhi: A man living separately from his wife for over a decade failed to get a divorce from the Delhi high court after he couldn’t prove that his wife was cruel.

A bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani dismissed the appeal filed by the husband, pointing out that divorce can’t be granted merely on the grounds that a marriage is dead and there has been a breakdown.

“We know that the parties have been living separately for the past 10 years. Efforts made at different levels by the family court could not resolve the issue. Parties may claim that the marriage has broken down irretrievably as they could not reconcile themselves but the question is whether this is reason enough to be granted divorce. The answer is no according to the decision of the apex court,” the bench noted, refusing relief.

In his plea, the husband argued that since he and his wife had been living separately for the past 12 years, he should be allowed to end his marriage. The man had filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on account of cruelty.

But the trial court, on the basis of evidence, concluded that the accusations of cruelty against the wife could not be proved.

“We have no hesitation to conclude that the instances given by him are nothing but normal wear and tear in a matrimonial life, which cannot constitute mental cruelty and aren’t weighty enough to dissolve the marriage,” the court said.

On her part, the wife claimed she was harassed for dowry but HC found that everyone was discharged for lack of evidence by the trial court.

“What actually led the wife to separate from her husband along with her daughter is something only the couple knows,” HC noted.

Stay updated on the go with Times of India News App. Click here to download it for your device.

Husband LOOSES DIVORCE though wife suffering from PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA & needs medicine life long! Karnataka HC

As per expert doctor’s reports, the wife’s disease which started approx 9 years before marriage. Her own doctor says she NEEDS medicines LIFE LONG and at best the disease can be controlled and it cannot be cured !! Husband proves that the disease was hidden from husband before marriage) Wife refuses sex !, she hears voices when there is no one around, throws things on husband’s mother etc etc. Still HUSBAND DENIED DIVORCE !! Long live Marriage !!

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

  • marriage in 2011
  • after marriage it comes to light that wife is suffering from various hallucinations and psychiatric symptoms since 2002 (9 years BEFORE marriage)

  • after marriage, wife refuses sex saying someone is watching them even though there is NO one and all windows / doors are closed

  • Wife throws vessels etc on mother in law and injures her

  • there are various other allegations against the wife’s erratic behavior as well

  • the NIMHANS (government hospital report clearly says) “…9. As per the report of the NIMHANS dated 1.4.2014, on her mental state examination, she was found to be asymptomatic. Her diagnosis is “Paranoid Schizophrenia”…“. !!!

  • The NIMHANS report says the earlier doc, Dr C.Y.Sudarshan who has seen her over 10 years is the right person to treat her ”…9. As per the report of the NIMHANS dated 1.4.2014, on her mental state examination, she was found to be asymptomatic. Her diagnosis is “Paranoid Schizophrenia”. If she remains symptom-free, she may be able to discharge marital responsibilities. At the end, the report refers PW-3/Dr.C.Y.Sudarshan, Psychiatrist of Davangere, her treating Doctor as the most appropriate person to provide additional information since he has seen her for over a decade……“

  • That doctor C.Y.Sudarshan, says the wife’s disease is NOT curable but has to take medicines life long !!. As per the Hon court’s summary ”…As per the testimony of PW-3 (the Doctor who has been treating her since the year 2002) she has Bipolar affective disorder i.e., disturbances of mood episodically. While under depressed mood, she has decreased appetite and sleep, poor concentration and fearful; during happy mood, she has mild anger and irritability in her behavior. In his opinion, if she is put on regular check-up and regular treatment, the disease that she is suffering with, can be controlled, but it is not curable…….“

  • Still the Hon HC says the husband is NOT entitled to divorce

  • The Hon HC says ”….25. In our considered opinion, the Court below was insensitive in branding the wife as suffering with completely incurable paranoid schizophrenia. …… We have living examples of lot many victims of such ailment in our society, who are leading life with the support of regular medication like any other normal members of the society. The appellant/wife, who was present before this Court, looked like any other person present in the Court hall, she is a M.C.A. graduate with 1st class with distinction and it is also the submission at the Bar, she was employed prior to her marriage, even if there is any apprehension of recurring of schizophrenic symptoms, the answer is in re-modeling the medicine, but not in amputing her marital/emotional life itself…..“ !!
    http://evinayak.tumblr.com/post/148184220214/wife-suffering-paranoid-schizophrenia-needing

 

NO Perm Almony if NO Dvrc grantd. Civil cout decre binding Crimnl court, No 125CrPc Maint. Kerla HC

No Permanent Alimony to be granted under Sec 25 HMA is divorce is NOT granted. Wife and kid NOT to get maintenance under Sec 125 CrPC if they were denied maintenance in a civil case as decisions on a Civil case override criminal case. Only rights under Sec 18 of HAMA survive. Court is not at liberty to grant relief of maintenance simpliciter obtainable under one act in proceedings under the other. Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993 Crl.L.J. 2930 quoted.


Kerala High Court
Saroja vs Janardhanan on 15 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 (2) ALT Cri 128
Author: M H Nair
Bench: M H Nair
ORDER M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

  1. The revision petitioners are mother and child, who were affected by a decision of the Sessions Judge, Palakkad reversing the finding in M.C. No. 43/91 passed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad. As per the order of the said Magistrate, the husband’s application for cancellation of an earlier order for maintenance was dismissed; but the impact of the order of the Sessions Judge is that the maintenance granted in M.C. No. 27/81 is rendered unenforceable albeit with prospective effect. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  2. More details: M.C. No. 27/81 was filed by the present revision petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Palakkad seeking maintenance for the wife and child. The court allowed maintenance to them at the rate of Rs. 180/- and Rs. 100/- per mensem respectively. O.P. No. 39/80 had been filed by the respondent herein seeking dissolution of marriage in the Sub Court, Palakkad and in I.A. No. 3265/80 order for permanent alimony had been sought for by the petitioners. When O.P. No. 39/80 was subsequently dismissed, the aforesaid I.A. seeking alimony was also dismissed stating that there was no evidence. The matter was taken up in appeal to the District Court, Palakkad through A.S. No. 144/81. The appeal was dismissed and that was the subject matter of S.A. No. 115/83 of this Court. ON 3.10.1988 this Court found that the orders impugned did not suffer from any material defect; but taking into account the plight of the wife and child it was directed that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- should be deposited in the name of the child in three instalments and that the present respondent should also deposit Rs. 2,000/- in the name of the child every year.
  3. After the aforesaid judgment was passed by this Court, the respondent filed M.C. No. 43/91 seeking cancellation of the earlier order directing maintenance passed in M.C. No. 27/81. This motion was under S.127(2) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate found that there was no justification for modifying the earlier order and accordingly dismissed the said petition. In revision, the learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad ordered on 31.3.1995 that the findings of the civil court are binding on the criminal court and that the impact of denying permanent alimony to the wife and child is that they are not entitled to maintenance under the criminal law also. Taking that view, the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate was reversed and the order granting maintenance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in M.C. No. 27/81 was cancelled.
  4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that there was absolutely no justification for interfering with the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate and that this is not a case where a regular suit or petition was filed seeking maintenance before the Court either under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act or otherwise and that an observation made by this Court while disposing of S.A. No. 115/93 should not stand in the way of the criminal court considering maintenance for the wife and child independently. During arguments, the learned counsel also placed reliance on S.25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in this regard.
  5. Ss. 25(1) and 25(2) of the Act are quoted hereunder:
    • “25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.-
    • (1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and property of the applicant, it may seen to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.
    • (2) If the Court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-s.(1), it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.”
  6. Even though, at the first blush, it would appear that under S.25(2) of the act civil courts will have the power to order alimony even after dismissal of a proceeding under the Act as it happens in the present case, the correct position as declared by the Apex Court in Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993 Crl.L.J. 2930) is that the power of the court to grant alimony is confined to cases where the court intervenes and effects disruption of the marital status. If such a relief is granted by the civil court, it would also have power to subsequently vary the order for alimony invoking power under S.25(2) of the Act. IN contrast, where the relief of dissolution of marriage is denied by the court thereby allowing the marital status to continue, a Hindu wife, who is admitted that status, can live in separation from her husband and in that event, her claim for maintenance cannot be allowed under S.25(1), though it is preserved under s.18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. It was also held that the Court is not at liberty to grant relief of maintenance simpliciter obtainable under one act in proceedings under the other. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  7. As far as the present case is concerned, the relief of divorce sought by the husband in O.P. No. 39/80 was disallowed by the Court. This is not, therefore, a case where variance of the order passed in I.A. No. 3265/80 as modified by the judgment of this Court in S.A. No. 115/83 can be allowed under S.25(2) of the Act. If there is change of circumstances, the right of the petitioners appear to be to proceed under S.18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act only.
  8. It cannot be said that the directions of this Court in the judgment in S.A. No. 115/83 can be ignored by the criminal court. The learned Sessions Judges has dealt with the aspect in elaborate detail and found that the orders of the civil court have a bearing on the criminal court as well and that in the circumstances, there is no justification for continuing to provide maintenance to the wife and child invoking power under S.125 of the Cr.P.C. Variance of the earlier order was hence rightly allowed invoking power under S.127(2) of the Cr.P.C.
  9. I find no illegality, irregularity or incorrectness in the said finding of the learned Sessions Judge. Leaving open the right of the petitioners available under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the revision is dismissed.

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

False allegations of illicit relation with girls is cruelty. Husbnd wins Dvrc. NO Jewel returned 2 wife ! CAL HC

In this case, the CAL HC decrees that a woman making false and unfounded allegations about husband’s illicit relations is cruelty. The court goes on to say that even if such allegations were made AFTER the institution of the suit, they tantamount to cruelty !! quoting a large number of cornerstone cases, the Husband is granted divorce !

The Hon court observes : “….. written statement, ….wife alleged that the petitioner used to coach a girl at Konnagore and fell in love with her. It was also alleged that the petitioner had illicit connection with the said girl. She did not stop these. Even in her deposition she has stated that the petitioner used to mix with another girl and that when she protested, there was a quarrel with him over this. So in her deposition she also persisted that her husband had illicit connection with another girl. But, barring evidence of her own, she could not adduce any evidence to prove the above mentioned allegation. This allegation, needless to say, has been denied by the petitioner-husband. … She has, as indicated above, spoken of such allegation. But her witnesses have not said anything in this regard. Her own brother Chandidas Banerjee (witness No. 3) has not said anything in this regard. Evidence of witness No. 2 Nepal Chandra Mukherjee in this regard is extremely vague. … Before institution of the instant suit, the respondent-wife made an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance against her husband. In this application she did not allege that her husband had love affairs or illicit contection with any girl. …. So in the facts and circumstances of the case and on consideration of the evidence on record we hold that such allegation of the respondent-wife is false and without any foundation. It is now well settled that such false allegation against the character of any spouse made by the other spouse constitutes mental cruelty and that such mental cruelty will be valid ground for passing a decree of divorce under the provision of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act…..”

while the court is ready to order some permanent alimony to the wife (who also maintains her son), the court refuses to order her any Jewels etc

****************************************

Calcutta High Court

Amarendranath Sanyal vs Krishna Sanyal on 1 June, 1992

Equivalent citations: (1993) 1 CALLT 301 HC, I (1993) DMC 565

Author: S Guin

Bench: A Bhattacharjee, S K Guin

JUDGMENT S.K. Guin, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly on 22 9 88 in Matrimonial Suit No. 161 of 1985 whereby he dismissed the suit.

1. The petitioner-husband, who is the appellant here. brought the above suit against his wife, who is the respondent here, for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The wife contested the suit by filing a written statement.

2. Undisputedly the marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rites on 13.3.79 and a son, who is now about 12 years old, was born out of this wedlock. It is also not disputed that since 15.10.83 the parties have been living separately and that the son, born out of this wedlock, has been living with his mother. Both sides adduced evidence-oral and documentary in support of their respective cases before the learned District Judge who on consideration of the same has held that the plaintiff failed to prove cruelty or desertion as alleged by him. With these findings, he dismissed the suit.

3. Being aggrieved the petitioner-husband has preferred the instant appeal challenging the correctness and propriety of the findings as arrived at by the learned District Judge. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned District Judge should have passed a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The respondent, however, has resisted this appeal.

4. Having heard the learned Counsel of both the parties and having gone through the evidence on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned District Judge with regard to desertion. However, we are not inclined to support his finding as to cruelty. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the written statement, the respondent-wife alleged that the petitioner used to coach a girl at Konnagore and fell in love with her. It was also alleged that the petitioner had illicit connection with the said girl. She did not stop these. Even in her deposition she has stated that the petitioner used to mix with another girl and that when she protested, there was a quarrel with him over this. So in her deposition she also persisted that her husband had illicit connection with another girl. But, barring evidence of her own, she could not adduce any evidence to prove the above mentioned allegation. This allegation, needless to say, has been denied by the petitioner-husband. In this case the respondent-wife has examined three witnesses including herself. She has, as indicated above, spoken of such allegation. But her witnesses have not said anything in this regard. Her own brother Chandidas Banerjee (witness No. 3) has not said anything in this regard. Evidence of witness No. 2 Nepal Chandra Mukherjee in this regard is extremely vague. According to him the respondent-wife told him that her husband had some illicit connection with some girl. So he has got no direct knowledge whether the petitioner-husband had any illicit connection with any girl. Before institution of the instant suit, the respondent-wife made an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance against her husband. In this application she did not allege that her husband had love affairs or illicit contection with any girl. Before institution of the instant suit she also appears to have made a complaint to the General Manager of the Government of India Press where the petitioner-husband used to serve (vide Ext. 8). In this complaint against her husband, she did not make any allegation that her husband had any love affairs or illicit connection with any girl. So in the facts and circumstances of the case and on consideration of the evidence on record we hold that such allegation of the respondent-wife is false and without any foundation. It is now well settled that such false allegation against the character of any spouse made by the other spouse constitutes mental cruelty and that such mental cruelty will be valid ground for passing a decree of divorce under the provision of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the case of Nimai Kumar Ghosh v. Smt. Mita Ghosh, reported in 89 C.W.N. 904 a Division Bench of this Court has held that any imputation against the character of any spouse made either by the wife or by the husband on mere suspicion and without any foundation would amount to mental cruelty and would be a valid ground for passing a decree under the provision of Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. A Division Bench of this Court presided over by my learned brother, A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. in the case of Harendranath Burman v. Suprova Burman, has held that unfounded or baseless allegation of adultery by one spouse against the other constitutes mental cruelty of the gravest character to warrant divorce. In the case of Smt. Santana Banerjee v. Sachindra Nath Banerjee, , the wife alleged illicit sexual relation of her husband with an office colleague and also indulged in making reckless, false and motivated allegation against her husband and his close relation not only in her written statement but also in her deposition. Another Division Bench of this Court presided over by G.N. Ray, J. (as he then was) has held in that case that such allegations constitute cruelty of a very grave nature. We respectfully agree with and rely upon the decision as referred to above. It is true that the allegations, as to character of the petitioner-husband were made by the respondent-wife after institution of the instant suit. But it is well settled that such post suit allegations or events may be taken into consideration to shorten the litigation and to do complete justice between the parties. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shikhar Chand v. Digambar Jain, , the Division Bench of this Court has held in the case of Harendra Nath Burman v. Suprova Burman (supra) that the allegation made in the written statement and in the deposition can and should be taken note of in matrimonial proceeding without driving the petitioner to another proceeding on the ground of such cruelty. It has further been held that it is open to a Court, including a Court of appeal, to take notice of events which happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties where it is necessary to do in order to shorten litigation or to do complete justice between the parties. The same view has also been expressed by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Santana Banerjee v. Sachtndra Nath Banerjee (supra). We see no reason to take a different view. So, though the allegation was made by the respondent-wife regarding the character of petitioner-husband in the written statement and was repeated in her deposition, such post-lis allegation can and should be taken note of in the instant matrimonial proceeding without driving the petitioner-husband to another proceeding on the ground of such cruelty. Thus on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the decisions as referred to above, we hold that the aforesaid unfounded and baseless allegations made by the respondent-wife against the character of the petitioner-husband in written statement and also in her deposition constitute mental cruelty of the gravest character to warrant a divorce. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

5. Before grant of divorce on the ground as embodied in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act let us consider whether a decree of judicial separation will serve the purpose in the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly the parties have been living separately since 15.10.83 i.e. for more than 8 years. We have seen that the respondent-wife made baseless and false allegations against her husband to the effect that he had love affairs and illicit connection with another girl. In the facts and circumstances of the case it appears to us that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and irreparably and that no useful purpose would be served by passing a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty. So we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner-husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

6. At the conclusion of the hearing of appeal, the respondent-wife filed two applications one under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for permanent alimony and another under Section 27 of the said Act for return of the articles mentioned in “Annexure A” to the application. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant raised no objection to the application under Section 25. But be has raised serious objection with regard to the application under Section 27. He has argued that as the respondent- wife claimed the articles and ornaments mentioned in the application as her own stridhan property, the provision of Section 27 cannot be invoked with regard to such stridhan property of the respondent-wife. He has, however, got no objection if the items of furniture such as cot (double bed), steel almirah (big size) and the dressing table are directed to be returned to the respondent-wife. In our opinion, contention as raised on behalf of the appellant must be upheld. In the application under Section 27 the respondent-wife has prayed for return of the ornaments and articles on the allegation that the said properties are her stridhan properties and so belong to her. But Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that the Court may make such provision in the decree with respect to the property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and wife. So the provisions of Section 27 can only be invoked for return of properties which were presented at or about the time of marriage and jointly belong to both the husband and wife. In this connection our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court presided over by my learned brother, A. M. Bhattacharjee, J. in the case of Sibnath Mukhopadhyay v. Sunita Mukhopadhyay . It has been held therein that Section 27 on its express terms would apply to such property only which (a) has been presented at or about the time of marriage and (b) may belong jointly to both the husband and wife. So Section 27 has no manner of application to the properties which exclusively belong to the wife or to the husband. The ornaments as mentioned in the Annexure ‘A’ to the application under Section 27 have been claimed by the respondent-wife as her stridhan and exclusive properties and as such the respondent-wife is not entitled to an order for return of those articles under the provision of Section 27. So the prayer for return of those ornaments must be rejected. However, she would be at liberty to seek an appropriate relief with regard to those ornaments as available to her under the general law. The cot, steel almirah and dressing table are undoubtedly of common use and may be meant for both the husband and wife. Moreover the learned Advocate for the appellant has conceded that those articles of furniture may be directed to be returned to the respondent-wife. So in the decree there would be a direction for return of the said articles to the respondent-wife. The application under Section 27 thus succeeds in part.

7. Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act any Court exercising jurisdiction under the said Act may, at the time of passing any decree on application made to it for the purpose, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the Court to be just. In her application the respondent-wife prayed for payment of sufficient permanent alimony but she did not quantify it. Now the question arises as to what should be the amount of permanent alimony, whether it should be paid in a lump sum or whether it should be paid monthly. That the respondent-wife, with whom the son born out of this wedlock is living, has no income or property of her own has not been disputed before us. It appears from the evidence on record that she has been living in the house of her brother. The son is now aged twelve and so is now school going. Mr. Sinha learned Advocate for the respondent-wife has submitted that since the petitioner-husband made default in payment of alimony pendente lite and since he has already retired from the service and received pensionary benefit, a gross sum may he given as permanent alimony so that the respondent-wife may not be put into any trouble in future in the matter of maintaining herself and her son This submission appears to us to be reasonable. The petitioner used to serve in the Government of India Press and he has already retired on attaining the age of superannuation. It also appears that he made default in payment of alimony pendente the. So in the facts and circumstances of the case it appears to us to be reasonable that a gross sum should be awarded as permanent alimony. Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate for the respondent-wife has further submitted that lump sum of Rs. 45,000/- to 50,000/- may be awarded as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife. We also called for a report from the Managar, Government of India Press to know what were the pensionary benefits available to the petitioner-husband. A reply has been received and the same has been placed on record. From the letter received from the Government of India Press it appears that the petitioner-husband is entitled to get pensionary benefits as mentioned below :-

(1) C.G.E.G.I.S. Rs. 3,456.00
(2) D.C.R.G. Rs. 32,175.00
(3) Commuted value of pension Rs. 40,668.00
(4) Leave encashment Rs. 25,000.00
(5) G.P. Fund. Rs. 85,374.90

8. Besides the abovementioned pensionary benefits the petitioner-husband will get pension at the rate of Rs. 649/-+ D.A. relief per month. Thus it is clear that besides the monthly pension as mentioned above, the petitioner-husband is entitled to get other pensionary benefits to the extent of Rs. 1,86,273.00 P. Thus having considered the income and properties of the parties and also the conduct of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it reasonable to grant a gross sum of Rs. 30,000/-as permanent alimony to be paid by the petitioner-husband to the respondent-wife and there will be direction to that effect in the decree.

9. In the result, this appeal is allowed. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to cost. The judgment and decree of dismissal as passed by the learned District Judges, Hooghly in Suit No. 161 of 1985 are set aside. The suit is hereby decreed. ‘ The marriage between the parties is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as embodied in Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

10. The respondent-wife do get permanent alimony of Rs. 30,000/-from the petitioner-husband and the petitioner-husband is directed to pay the said amount within three months from this day. The petitioner-husband is also directed to return the articles of furniture namely, cot (double bed), steel almirah (big size) and the dressing table as mentioned in Annexure A to the application under Section 27 to the respondent-wife within three months from this day. The respondent-wife, however, will be at liberty to seek the appropriate reliefs with regard to her alleged stridhan properties i.e, ornaments as are available to her under the general law. The applications under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act are thus disposed of as indicated above.

A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.

11. I agree.

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************