//
you're reading...
legal issues

Divorce – Permanent alimony – Divorce granted – Permanent alimony granted at 24 lakhs – High court enhanced the same to Rs. 40 lakhs – Apex court reduced the same to Rs.15 lakhs = CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8459-8462 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave petition (Civil) Nos.9694-9697 of 2012) V.K. Vasantha Kumari …Appellant Versus R. Sudhakar …Respondent = 2014 – Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41881

Divorce – Permanent alimony – Divorce granted – Permanent alimony granted at 24 lakhs – High court enhanced the same to Rs. 40 lakhs – Apex court reduced the same to Rs.15 lakhs =

The said interlocutory application  came  to

be disposed of by an order dated 3.11.2009 by  the  IInd  Additional  Family

Court, Chennai granting an amount of Rs.24 lakhs as permanent alimony.=

High court-

“36.  Since the  appellant  is  having  three  children,  in  the  event  of

vacating the existing premises, if she takes on lease at least a  three  bed

room flat in a decent locality, she would have to spend at least Rs.25,000/-

per month, apart from the other expenses.

But the appellant  is  occupying

the respondent house.  Since, the appellant had  submitted  that  her  first

daughter is employed, she would also be earning.  The appellant, as  pointed

out above is having two properties at Injambakkam and sea Shore  town  worth

about Rs.2 crores.

Taking into consideration all these aspects, we  are  of

the considered view that the appellant may require at least Rs.40,000/-  per

month to meet the expenses.

For getting Rs.40,000/-  per  month  as  return

she may have to invest Rs.40,00,000/-.  The Family court awarded  a  sum  of

Rs.24,00,000/- as  permanent  alimony.

Considering  the  present  cost  of

living, we are of the considered view that the permanent alimony awarded  by

the IInd Additional Family Court, Chennai is on the lower side and the  same

should be increased to Rs.40,00,000/-.

Accordingly, the  permanent  alimony

awarded by the Family Court is increased to Rs.40,00,000/-.

37.   Therefore, the fair and final order of the Family Court passed  in  IA

No.409 of 2009  in  H.M.O.P.  No.571  of  2004  on  the  file  of  the  IInd

Additional Family Court, Chennai  is  modified  by  awarding  Rs.40,00,000/-

(Rupees Forty Lacs  only) as permanent alimony to the appellant/petitioner.

38.   In the result, C.M.A. No.933 of 2010  is  partly  allowed  and  C.M.A.

No.543 of 2010 stands dismissed.  M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 in  CMA  No.543  of

2010 is dismissed and M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2010 is closed.  No costs.”

Apex court

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find  justification  in

the demand made by the appellant. We, therefore, direct  the  respondent  to

pay another Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen  lakhs)  to  the  appellant  wife

towards permanent alimony within a period of thirty days from today.

2014 – Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41881

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COUR OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8459-8462 OF 2014
(Arising out of Special Leave petition (Civil) Nos.9694-9697 of 2012)
V.K. Vasantha Kumari …Appellant

Versus

R. Sudhakar …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Chelameswar, J.
1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal is filed by the appellant wife being not satisfied
with the order of the High Court of Madras in CMA Nos.543 and 933 of 2010
and M.P. No.1 of 2010 and M.P. No.1 of 2011 in the above mentioned CMAs.
3. The appellant and the respondent were wife and husband. Their
marriage took place in 1986. It is an unfortunate case where the
relationship between the appellant and respondent ran into trouble. There
are three grown up children out of the said wedlock.

4. In the year 2004, the respondent husband filed FCOP No.571 of 2004
before the IInd Additional Family Court at Chennai seeking divorce from the
appellant on the ground of cruelty. The said FCOP was allowed on
3.11.2009. But both the parties carried the appeals No.544 and 932 of
2010. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common order dated 25.1.2011.
The appellate decree insofar it is relevant for our purpose reads thus:
“2. That the Judge and Decree of Court below in respect of clause (1)
i.e., the marriage dissolved by the decree of divorce on the ground of
cruelty be and hereby is set aside and the marriage is dissolved based on
the ‘no objection’ endorsement made by petitioner in the petition.”
5. The children of the parties filed Suit No.677 of 2004 before the High
Court of Madras for partition of the plaint scheduled property.

6. From the impugned order it can be seen that there are thirteen items
in the partition suit referred to above. According to the respondent, some
of these items are already sold off. Admittedly, even according to the
respondent the family has been maintaining five vehicles.

7. The partition suit is still pending after a decade. During the
pendency of the abovementioned two proceedings, innumerable interlocutory
applications came to be filed by various parties. It may not be necessary
and profitable to describe all the proceedings.

8. The appellant moved an interlocutory application under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of interim maintenance in the
divorce original petition filed by the husband. The said Interlocutory
Application No.3475 of 2004 was dismissed by the Family Court on 3.2.2007.
Against the said order, the appellant herein filed a Civil Revision being
CRP (PO) No.1168 of 2007 before the High Court of Madras which was disposed
of by an order dated 15.10.2008. The relevant portion of the order is as
follows:
“5. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a
direction to the IInd Additional Judge, Family court, Chennai to dispose of
the divorce petition along with application for permanent alimony, that
would be filed by the petitioner herein/wife and also the arrears of
maintenance on the basis of the details that would be filed by her, within
the period stipulated by the Hon’ble 1st Bench of this court, while
disposing of the OSA No.179 of 2008 on 14.07.06.”

9. Pursuant to the said direction of the High Court, the appellant
herein filed another Interlocutory Application No.409 of 2009 in the
Original Petition No.571 of 2004 referred to above seeking permanent
alimony of Rs.1 lakh per month. The said interlocutory application came to
be disposed of by an order dated 3.11.2009 by the IInd Additional Family
Court, Chennai granting an amount of Rs.24 lakhs as permanent alimony.

10. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent husband herein carried
the matter in appeal (by CMA No.543 of 2010) to the High Court. Not
satisfied with the amount granted, the appellant wife also carried the
matter in appeal (by CMA No.933 of 2010) before the High Court. Both these
matters came to be disposed of by the impugned order. The operative
portion of the impugned order reads as under:
“36. Since the appellant is having three children, in the event of
vacating the existing premises, if she takes on lease at least a three bed
room flat in a decent locality, she would have to spend at least Rs.25,000/-
per month, apart from the other expenses. But the appellant is occupying
the respondent house. Since, the appellant had submitted that her first
daughter is employed, she would also be earning. The appellant, as pointed
out above is having two properties at Injambakkam and sea Shore town worth
about Rs.2 crores. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we are of
the considered view that the appellant may require at least Rs.40,000/- per
month to meet the expenses. For getting Rs.40,000/- per month as return
she may have to invest Rs.40,00,000/-. The Family court awarded a sum of
Rs.24,00,000/- as permanent alimony. Considering the present cost of
living, we are of the considered view that the permanent alimony awarded by
the IInd Additional Family Court, Chennai is on the lower side and the same
should be increased to Rs.40,00,000/-. Accordingly, the permanent alimony
awarded by the Family Court is increased to Rs.40,00,000/-.

37. Therefore, the fair and final order of the Family Court passed in IA
No.409 of 2009 in H.M.O.P. No.571 of 2004 on the file of the IInd
Additional Family Court, Chennai is modified by awarding Rs.40,00,000/-
(Rupees Forty Lacs only) as permanent alimony to the appellant/petitioner.

38. In the result, C.M.A. No.933 of 2010 is partly allowed and C.M.A.
No.543 of 2010 stands dismissed. M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 in CMA No.543 of
2010 is dismissed and M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2010 is closed. No costs.”
11. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent herein carried the
matter to this Court in SLP Nos. 2506-2507 of 2012 which was dismissed by
an order of this Court on 30.01.2012. Thereafter, the respondent deposited
the amount of Rs.40 lakhs and the same is recorded by this Court vide order
dated 26.11.2013. Therefore, the finding of the High Court, while
determining the question of permanent alimony of the appellant, that the
appellant requires the amount of Rs.40,000/- per month has become final.
The issue in the instant appeal is limited. The appellant has prayed that
having regard to the fluctuating rate of interest on fixed deposits, the
amount of Rs.40 lakhs will not constantly fetch an interest of Rs.40,000/-
per month, an appropriate order be passed to ensure that she gets a monthly
sum of Rs.40,000/- towards her maintenance.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find justification in
the demand made by the appellant. We, therefore, direct the respondent to
pay another Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs) to the appellant wife
towards permanent alimony within a period of thirty days from today.

14. The appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as to
costs.
………………………….J.
(J. Chelameswar)
.……………………..….J.
(A.K. Sikri)
New Delhi;
September 04, 2014
IN THE SUPREME COUR OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8459-8462 OF 2014
(Arising out of Special Leave petition (Civil) Nos.9694-9697 of 2012)
V.K. Vasantha Kumari …Appellant

Versus

R. Sudhakar …Respondent

J U D G M E N T
After the order is pronounced, a prayer is made by Mr. Ankur
Saigal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent husband that the
respondent be given a period of two months to comply with the direction
given today. We, therefore, direct the husband to make the payment within
a period of 8 weeks from today instead of 30 days, as directed in the
judgment.

………………………….J.
(J. Chelameswar)

.……………………..….J.
(A.K. Sikri)
New Delhi;
September 04, 2014
———————–
9

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,727,238 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,853 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com