Tag Archives: alimony

Wife Can Be Prosecuted For Lying Before Court To Claim Maintenance: Gujarat HC

It is often found that the litigants coming before the court chose to speak blatant lies and do so with complete impudence, the court said.Lying on affidavit and deposing falsehood in the witness box…

Wife Can Be Prosecuted For Lying Before Court To Claim Maintenance:

Gujarat HC

[Read Judgment]


14 Nov 2016 10:43 AM

It is often found that the litigants coming before the court chose to speak blatant lies and do so with complete impudence, the court said. Lying on affidavit and deposing falsehood in the witness box is much not unusual in litigation, especially when it is a matrimonial one.

The ego clashes between the parties, the husband and wife, catalyses the otherwise usual tendency to lie. But this recent order by Gujarat High Court is a warning to such people. Also Read – Guj HC Orders Removal Of Police Protection Granted Mechanically For Fencing Disputed Land [Read Judgment]

The Gujarat High Court has upheld a trial court order which ordered prosecution of a lady for blatantly lying before the court to claim maintenance from the husband. Stating that his wife had suppressed the fact that she gets permanent alimony from her former husband and lied in affidavit, an application was moved before the Family Court, Rajkot, by the husband, to take action against his wife under Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC for committing an offence under Sections 191, 192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, which was allowed by the trial court. The wife approached the high court seeking quashing of this order. 

— Read on www.livelaw.in/wife-can-prosecuted-lying-court-claim-maintenance-gujarat-hc/


Current Indian alimony, maintenance and family courts explained

“When someone tries to lay a guilt trip on you for being successful, remember that your guilt is some politician’s license to take what you worked for and give it to someone else who is more likely to vote for the politician who plays Santa Claus with your money.”


Don’t tell me we need more awareness. there’s enough already and it’s time to act !!

Don’t tell me we need more awareness.

News papers, TV debate shows, FB, Twitter, Street corners, everyone talks of how women cheat, how women file fake cases.

Judges have repeatedly spoken about misuse of 498a. 1000s of blogs and FB pages exist on #fake498a #fakeDV #maintenace #Jailbail Industry.

Regional language media regularly posts info on how women kill their husbands to elope / live with lover-boys. National media is full of Indrani Mukerjea type cases.
#fakeCases are now a mainstream issue

#thirdWaveFeminism is not a holy cow any longer. It’s being kicked around the world.
So, awareness IS there … We are drowning in awareness!!.

IMHO What we lack is the willingness to think before marriage and the willingness to fight after falling into a trap

I’m confident that this will change

i’m sure that the tide will turn
It’s just taking time as we continue with the march
#My2Cents #RiseUpIndia

with all money linked to #aadhar, will it become easy for courts to take it all in one go ??

if government makes absolutely #aadhar compulsory (over few years), then link all #bank a/c, #property, #shares, own car, loans etc etc to aadhar, will it become VERY easy for #FamilyCourt and #Magistrate court to loot you in one go, and give % of everything to wife (and her …….. ) ???

Wife appeals exparte decree 10 years later & gets 82 lakhs alimony. Total 23 years marital bliss! Orissa HC case

Married in 1993, trouble starts soon after birth of kid circa 1996. There are claims of extra marital affairs etc. Wife leaves husband in 2000 and never returns. Husband wins ex parte divorce in 2003 (wife hasn’t appeared in spite of being served is what is said) . Wife stays silent till 2013 and then starts a case for divorce on grounds of cruelty !! In 2014 she claims that she NEVER knew of the earlier decree dated 2003 (i.e. for 11 years) !! Lower court dismisses wife’s claim. Matter reaches Orissa HC where HC says “Pay” because reconciliation is NOT possible !! Husband and his dad end by paying approx 62 lakhs !! Meanwhile the daughter is a major etc etc, still husband pays


MATA No.118 of 2014 & MATA No.125 of 2014

Appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 10.9.2014 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in C.P. No.460 of 2013 and the order dated 22.8.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.781 of 2002.

MATA No.118 of 2014
Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and another              ……      Appellants
Partha Sarathi Mishra                               ……    Respondent
For Appellants:      M/S. Bipin Bihari Jena, J.Bhagat, D.Pradhan and T.K.Jena
For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Sahu

MATA No.125 of 2014
Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra              ……          Appellant
Partha Sarathi Mishra                     ……      Respondent
For Appellant:      M/S. Bipin Bihari Jena, J.Bhagat, D.Pradhan and T.K.Jena
For Respondent : M/s.Rakesh Sahu, A.R.Panigrahi & Rajesh Sahu

Date of Order: 22.02.2016

P R E S E N T:


Since both the above noted appeals were taken up analogously, this common order is being passed to dispose of both the appeals. The factual matrix of both the appeals are as follows:

2.          Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra is appellant No.1 in Mata No.118 of 2014 and the sole appellant in MATA No.125 of 2014. Partha Sarathi Mishra is the sole respondent in both the above noted appeals. Their daughter-Anmol Mishra is appellant No.2 in MATA No.118 of 2014. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3.          A perusal of record shows that the marriage between Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and Partha Sarathi Mishra was solemnized on 11.07.1993. Out of the wedlock, daughter, Anmol Mishra was born on 3.6.1996. Trouble started brewing between the spouses even before the daughter was born and got aggravated after the birth of the daughter. Dispute arose between the spouses due to alleged extra marital affairs. Thereafter, the allegation is that Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra went back to her father’s house in November, 2000 and never returned. In such background, theatre of action got shifted to Court rooms and that Partha Sarathi Mishra filed C.P. No.781 of 2002 under Sections 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage and for custody of their minor daughter, Anmol Mishra in the Family Court, Cuttack. Despite summons, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra did not appear and accordingly, on 22.8.2003, the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack decreed Civil Proceeding No.781 of 2002 ex parte against Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and dissolved their marriage by passing a decree of divorce. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack further directed to give the custody of the then minor daughter, Anmol Mishra to Partha Sarathi Mishra. In 2013, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra filed Civil Proceeding No.460 of 2013 before the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. She also filed Interlocutory Application No.118 of 2013 claiming interim maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter, Anmol Mishra in Family Court, Bhubaneswar. During pendency of Civil Proceeding No.460 of 2013, Anmol Mishra became a major on 3.6.2014. According to Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra, she came to know about order dated 22.8.2013 passed in Civil Proceeding No.781 of 2002 on 16.8.2014. However, on 10.9.2014, Civil Proceeding No.460 of 2013 was disposed of along with I.A. No.118 of 2013 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar holding that the cases were not at all maintainable in the background of order dated 22.8.2003 passed in Civil Proceeding No.781 of 2002. Challenging the said order dated 10.09.2014, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and Anmol Mishra filed MATA No.118 of 2014 on 14.10.2014. Thereafter, on 22.10.2014, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra filed MATA No.125 of 2014 challenging the order dated 22.8.2003 passed in Civil Proceeding No.781 of 2002. On 20.4.2015, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra, Anmol Mishra and Partha Sarathi Mishra appeared in Court along with their respective counsel. When this Court realized that the re-union was not possible, it went into the question with regard to quantum of permanent alimony. In order to give the parties a chance regarding settlement relating to permanent alimony, MATA No.118 of 2014 was directed to be taken up on 22.4.2015 along with MATA No.125 of 2014. On 22.4.2015, all the parties along with their respective counsel presented themselves before this Court and the matter was taken up in the Chambers. After a long deliberation, the parties came to an amicable settlement on following terms and conditions relating to all the disputes between them. The terms of settlement were as follows:-

  1. “That the two Federal Bank Limited Certificates issued by Cuttack
    Branch from Account No.13770300116517 dated 6.8.2011 and Account
    No.13770300116012 dated 12.7.2011, both standing in the joint names
    of Sri Parthasarathi Mishra and Anmol Mishra, wherein it is mentioned
    that either or survivor can get them encashed, the first certificate
    having maturity value of Rs.7,44,274.00 and the subsequent having
    maturity value of Rs.7,07,317.00 be handed over to Anmol Mishra who
    is entitled to get them encahsed on maturity. The said certificates
    have been handed over to Anmol Mishra in presence of the counsel for
    both sides as well as the father and she is directed to make an
    endorsement regarding receipt thereof on the order-sheet of this
    Matrimonial Appeal.
  2. That the bank account in the Federal Bank Limited opened in the
    name of Anmol Mishra, being bank Account no.125 (New No.1257) will
    continue with Anmol Mishra and the father will hand over the passbook
    of the said bank account to Anmol Mishra on 12.5.2015, when this
    matter shall come up again.
  3. That the father Parthasarathi Mishra will give a draft of
    Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) in the name of Anmol Mishra on
    12th May, 2015.
  4. That the father will come with a draft of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees
    Twenth lakhs) on 3rd of July, 2015 in the name of Madhusmita Pujari @
  5. That the father Parthasarathi Mishra will come with another bank
    draft of Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight lakhs) in the name of
    Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra on 5th January, 2016.The above five terms and conditions have been accepted and agreed to
    by both the sides in presence of their respective counsel on their
    own volition without any threat, force, coercion or mis-
    representation. This is in full and final settlement. These terms and
    conditions, we repeat, are in full and final settlement of all the
    disputes of any nature between the parties.”

4.           The matter was further taken up on 12.5.2015, 3.7.2015, 10.12.2015 and finally on 5.1.2016. By 5.1.2016 the terms of settlement as delineated on 22.4.2015 have been implemented. Accordingly, this Court recorded that there remained no other dispute between the parties. In such background, nothing remains to be decided in both the appeals. However, before giving a quietus to the matter, it is directed that since the matters have ended in compromise, all the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties should be ignored and should have no effect in future, so that the future lives of the parties, particularly, that of the daughter, Anmol Mishra would in no way be affected. However, we make it clear that we have not interfered with the order dated 22.8.2003 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack dissolving the marriage between Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and Parthasarathi Mishra passed in C.P. No.781 of 2002. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Both the above noted appeals are accordingly disposed of.

Biswajit Mohanty, J.
Vinod Prasad, J. I agree.
Vinod Prasad, J.

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Dated 22nd February, 2016


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