Gauhati High Court
Smt Dipika Gogoi Khanikar vs Sri Pradip Khanikar on 29 October, 2019
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba, Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010004572017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Mat.App. 51/2018
1:SMT DIPIKA GOGOI KHANIKAR
W/O SRI PRADIP KHANIKAR ,
RESIDENT OF SRIPURIA, TINSUKIA ,P.O. P.S. AND DIST TINSUKIA
VERSUS
1:SRI PRADIP KHANIKAR
S/O LATE SWARUP KHANIKAR ,
RESIDENT OF DULIAJAN OIL COMPANY , QUARTER NO. 229B TYPE (NEAR
LIBRARY) DULUAJAN ,P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN ,DIST. DIBRUGARH,
ASSAM ,PIN. 7866502
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR G P BHOWMIK
Linked Case : CRP 278/2017 1:PRADIP KHANIKAR S/O- LATE SWARUP KHANIKAR R/O- QTR NO. 229 B TYPE NEAR LIBRARY DULIAJAN P.S AND P.O- DULIAJAN DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786001 VERSUS 1:SMT. DIPIKA KHANIKAR R/O- SRIPURIA TINSUKIA P.O Page No.# 2/4 P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786145 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRG P BHOWMIK Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R S MISHRA Linked Case : Mat.App. 21/2018 1:PRADIP KHANIKAR S/O LT. SWARUP KHANIKAR R/O QR. 229 B TYPE (NEAR LIBRARY) DULIAJAN P.S. AND P.O. DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 786001 VERSUS 1:SMT. DIPIKA KHANIKAR W/O PRADIP KHANIKAR R/O SRIPURIA TINSUKIA P.O. P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786145 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G P BHOWMIK Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A K GUPTA BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA 29.10.2019:
(Ajai Lamba, CJ)
1. The respondent/husband preferred a suit for divorce vide Title Suit (M) No.77/2015, Sri Pradip Khanikar vs. Smt. Dipika Gogoi Khanikar. Decree for divorce has been granted vide the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2017.
Page No.# 3/4 So far as alimony is concerned, as provided in paras 23 and 24 of the impugned judgment, the court directed the husband to pay permanent alimony in the sum of Rs.20,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty lakh) or an amount in the sum of Rs.15,000.00 (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month as maintenance allowance to the wife.
2. Mat.App. No.51/2018 has been filed by the wife while praying that if permanent alimony in the sum of Rs.20,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty lakh) is given, she will not contest the divorce, and consequently would accept decree of divorce. It has further been said in the appeal that if alimony at the rate of Rs.15,000.00 (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month is upheld by this Court, then she would contest the divorce.
3. So far as the amount of alimony is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent/husband has pointed out that other than Rs.20,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty lakh) onetime payment as alimony or in the alternative Rs.15,000.00 (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month, the husband is required to pay Rs.15,000.00 (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and another Rs.15,000.00 under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It has been pointed out that in regard to the order passed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, CRP No.278/2017, Pradip Khanikar vs. Smt. Dipika Khanikar has been filed which is required to be taken up with this case.
4. We have also taken into account the fact that Mat.App. No.21/2018 has been filed by the husband in challenge to the amount of alimony awarded vide judgment and decree dated 19.07.2017 (supra).
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has impressed upon the Court that though life expectancy of 75 years has been considered by the trial court, the trial court, however, has failed in taking into account the fact that the respondent/husband is already aged 58 years and his earning life would be restricted to about 60 years. This has caused manifest injustice.
6. We find that the appellant/wife is approbating and reprobating which cannot be permitted.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant/wife shall take specific instructions and file specific affidavit of the appellant in regard to the prayer to be pressed in this appeal.
Page No.# 4/4
8. Learned counsel for the parties have made a joint request for adjournment to seek specific instructions from their respective clients.
9. We deem it just and proper to direct the parties to remain present in the Court on the next date of listing, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
List this bunch of cases on 13.11.2019.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant