Swapna Rani Sahoo vs Niranjan Sahoo

Facts:

A matrimonial dispute was raised before a family court when the respondent that is the husband filed an appeal in the court against her wife, who was said to have misbehaved with the in-laws by making use of foul language and other misappropriate conduct was reported. The appellant went to her parental house along with her child and did not inform about her whereabouts to the respondent. It was appealed to dissolve the marriage on the ground of cruelty. However, in reply, the appellant denied all such allegations and submitted that the respondent in order to fulfill his personal motive filed an appeal of divorce knowing that the respondent had an extramarital affair with one of his staff members. The learned judge, the family court allowed the prayer for divorce by discarding all the allegations made by the appellant and decided that the wife is not subjected to any permanent alimony. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant moved to High Court.

Issues:

Whether the appellant is entitled to permanent alimony?

Legal Provisions:

• Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce
• Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Permanent alimony and maintenance

Appellant’s Contention:

It was submitted by the appellant that the judgment was illegal and the learned judge had erred in the finding if there was any cruelty against the husband by the wife. The wife claimed that the respondent had performed second marriage before the appeal period and laid evidence that proved that the second marriage took place much before the appeal period. The appellant further submitted that she had been suffering from breast cancer despite this she had been staying with her in-laws, whereas the respondent was cohabiting in a separate house with a newly wedded wife.
Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the judgment of the learned judge, Family court.

Respondent’s Contention:

The respondent laid evidence to prove that he had performed second marriage after the decree of the divorce of the first marriage and presented a birth certificate of the female child, born out of the second wedlock along with a marriage photograph.

Observation of the court:

The court was of the opinion that the learned judge, Family court had erred in not granting permanent alimony to the appellant, but the court did not feel inclined to set aside the decree of divorce just because the respondent was remarried. The court determined the quantum of alimony be granted to the appellant as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 after considering the income and age of the husband, it was felt appropriate to fix permanent alimony and provide for expenses relating to the child born out of wedlock from the first marriage.

Judgment:

The court ordered the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- as permanent alimony and to secure the appellant with residential accommodation.

The post Not luxury but a basic residential accommodation should be provided to the divorcee appeared first on LexForti .