Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Neeraj Kumar vs Smt. Aradhana Kumar on 14 July, 2015
FA-860-2013
(SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR Vs SMT. ARADHANA KUMAR)
14-07-2015
Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard counsel for the parties.
As a short question is involved, with the consent of the parties, this appeal is being disposed of finally. This first appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2013 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.225-A/2011 by which the appellant was directed to pay Rs. Ten lacs as permanent alimony and maintenance to the respondent/wife.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Family Court has committed gross error in allowing the application for permanent alimony of Rs.Ten lacs to the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that although the learned Family Court did not find the allegation of the respondent regarding illicit relationship with the ladies working in the shop nor find that the appellant used to commit quarrel with her, even though committed error in granting permanent alimony in favour of respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent neither adduced any evidence about the income of the appellant nor her requirement for her requirement for her maintenance even then awarded permanent alimony to the respondent.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that after proper appreciation and marshalling of the evidence, learned Family Court has awarded Rs. Ten lacs as permanent alimony and maintenance, which is proper. He further submitted that learned Family Court has not committed any error in awarding the permanent alimony and maintenance. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and consider the argument advanced by the parties. After perusal of the impugned judgment as well as evidence and material available on record, it appears that the appellant is running a jewelery business. He is also having more than one jewelery shop in the City of Jabalpur. He is also maintaining the four wheelers. In Para 13 of cross-examination appellant has also admitted that he had paid Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent when respondent was living with him. In Para 24, the appellant has also admitted that he is having three to four servants and one maidservant in his house. It is apparent from Ex.P/6, which is investment receipt of share holding, that the appellant is also doing the trading of shares. The respondent has filed bank statement of Akshat Jewelers (Ex.P/5) in her evidence which shows that the appellant has deposited about Rs. Fifty two lacs in the year 2010-11 and there are huge transactions made in the bank statement. Although this statement has not been signed or sealed by any authorities of the Bank but this statement is computer generated statement. In computer generated statement, no signature/seal is required. The appellant did not challenge the bank statement and never denied the veracity of the factum of his bank account. In such premises, keeping in view the aforesaid evidence, social-economic status of the appellant is very high and he has the capacity of giving the permanent alimony and maintenance of Rs. Ten lacs to the respondent.
It is well settled principles of law that when decree of divorce is passed, the wife is entitled for permanent alimony for her sustenance. While granting permanent alimony, no arithmetical formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. In Vinny Parmvir Parmar Vs. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112, the Apex Court has observed that while dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, the Court is required to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonably comfort considering her status and mode of life, she was used to with her husband.
Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, we find that the learned Family Court has not committed any error in granting permanent alimony to the respondent. Therefore, no case is made out for interfering in this appeal.
Accordingly, the first appeal is hereby dismissed with costs.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE