Karnataka High Court
Smt. M.V. Leelavathi vs Dr C.R. Swamy @ Dr C.R. Kumara on 18 November, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A.No.5015/2015 (FC)
C/W
M.F.A.No.3747/2015 (FC),
M.F.A.No.2483/2022 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI DR. C.R. SWAMY @
DR. C.R. KUMARA SWAMY
S/O B.M. RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3, 1ST MAIN
1ST "A" CROSS, SRIGANDHADA
KAVAL, "D" GROULP LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 091. ...APPELLANT IN
MFA 5015/2015 &
(BY SRI NAGARAJA S, ADV.) RESPONDENT IN
MFA 3747/2015 &
MFA 2483/2022
AND:
SMT. M.V. LEELAVATHI
W/O DR. C.R. SWAMY @
DR. C.R. KUMARA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.340
LAXMI NARASIMHA NILAYA
GAADI MUDDANNA ROAD
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BANGALORE - 560 079. ...RESPONDENT IN
MFA 5015/2015 &
(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, APPELLANT IN
SR. COUNSEL FOR MFA 3747/2015 &
SRI SARAVANA S, ADV.) MFA 2483/2022
2
M.F.A.NO.5015/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1)
OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED, SO FAR AS DIRECTING
THE PETITIONER TO PAY A SUM OF RS.15,00,000/- AS
PERMANENT ALIMONY TO THE RESPONDENT ONLY, BY THE
COURT OF I ADDL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU IN
M.C.NO. 2006/2011 DATED 25.04.2015 AND PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDERS THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
M.F.A.NO.3747/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1)
OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2015 PASSED IN
M.C.NO.2006/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED U/SEC 13(1)(IA) OF HINDU MARRIAGE
ACT.
M.F.A.NO.2483/2022 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1)
OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2015 PASSED IN
M.C.NO.2006/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(IA) OF THE
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 COUNTER CLAIM OF THE
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT IS HEARBY DISMISSED.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESEVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH
SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These three miscellaneous first appeals under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arise out of the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2015 passed by the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, wherein the petition filed by the respondent-husband 3 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') is allowed, the counter claim by the appellant-wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights is dismissed, and the respondent-husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony to his wife, and therefore, all the three appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking assigned to them before the Family Court.
4. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 27.02.2009 as per the Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner is a doctor by profession. After the marriage, the petitioner had left to Chandigarh to pursue his higher studies. The respondent who was an Engineer by 4 profession stayed in her mother's house immediately after the marriage and subsequently, in the month of December 2009, she joined the petitioner at Chandigarh and they lived together at Chandigarh till July 2010. While the respondent stayed with the petitioner at Chandigarh, she never used to cook for him and she used to pickup quarrel with the petitioner for silly reasons. The respondent was insisting the petitioner to come back from Chandigarh and stay at Bengaluru. After coming from Chandigarh, initially she had stayed in Bengaluru with her mother and thereafter she had left to Hyderabad on employment. Since the petitioner refused to come back from Chandigarh as he was pursuing his higher studies at Chandigarh, the respondent allegedly quarreled with him everyday over phone. The petitioner is an handicapped person and the respondent used to tease him for the same and used to always express her displeasure for having married him. The respondent stayed away from the petitioner and thereby refused sexual pleasure to him. The adamant attitude of the respondent continued and efforts made by the petitioner and his parents to bring her back to the matrimonial 5 house failed, and therefore, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the respondent calling upon her to join him and the respondent instead of joining the petitioner, had lodged a police complaint making false allegations against him and his family members and she was repeatedly threatening that she would ruin the petitioner's family by filing false complaints. She also stated that her brother is an IAS officer and she wanted to marry a IAS officer. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner had approached the Family Court by filing the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act with a prayer to dissolve the marriage that was solemnized on 27.02.2009.
5. The respondent had entered appearance in the said proceedings and filed her statement of objections and also counter claim under Section 23(a) of the Act seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. In the statement of objections, she had denied the petition averments and had contended that it was the petitioner who was harassing and torturing her which had compelled her to leave his company. She also contended 6 that prior to the marriage, she was not informed that the petitioner was handicapped and she came to know about the same only after the marriage and inspite of the same, she accepted him. She further contended that she was paying all her earnings to the petitioner and he was not giving her any money even for her daily needs. She has stated that in the month of December 2009, when they had been to Tirupathi, the petitioner had slapped her in the bus stand on the ground that she was not wearing proper dress. She has further stated that the petitioner used to behave in an inhuman manner and he used to sexually abuse her and he had also kicked on her abdomen and private parts causing great physical pain to her and while she had visited Chandigarh, he had poured hot coffee on her body. She has stated that he was also demanding money from her, for payment of his loan dues and since she could not arrange the same he had assaulted her causing grievous hurt and she had suffered a head injury for which she was treated in the hospital at Tumakuru. She has stated that an attempt was made to kill her by the petitioner and her parents and it is under these circumstances, she had lodged a criminal complaint 7 in Crime No.295/2011. She has also stated that the petitioner on his own volition had left her company and she was always ready and willing to join him, and accordingly, she had made a prayer to dismiss the petition and allow the counter claim made by her for restitution of conjugal rights.
6. Before the Family Court, to substantiate his case, the petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked 15 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-15. In support of her defence, respondent had examined herself as RW- 1 and got marked 35 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-35. The learned Judge of the Family Court vide the impugned judgment and decree allowed the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act and dissolved the marriage solemnized between the parties on 27.02.2009 and dismissed the counter claim made by the respondent. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in so far as it relates to granting the decree of divorce, the respondent has filed M.F.A.No.3747/2015 and challenging the 8 judgment and decree in so far as it relates to awarding of permanent alimony, the petitioner has filed M.F.A.No.5015/2015. During the pendency of these appeals, the respondent has filed M.F.A.No.2483/2022 challenging the impugned judgment and decree in so far as it relates to rejection of her counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife submits that the petitioner has not pleaded any specific instances of cruelty, and therefore, the Family Court was not justified in granting a decree of divorce. He submits that the material on record would go to show that it is the petitioner who has treated the respondent with cruelty after solemnization of their marriage and not vice versa. He has referred to certain e-mail messages forwarded by the respondent to her relatives and submits that it was the petitioner who was treating the respondent with cruelty. He submits that mere filing of a criminal complaint itself will not amount to cruelty. He submits that mere wear and tear in the family life of a couple cannot be considered as cruelty. In 9 support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.10694/2012 disposed of on 20.06.2022, MFA No.6680/2011 disposed of on 20.04.2022, MFA No.2724/2014 disposed of on 22.03.2022 and MFA No.2268/2015 disposed of on 08.08.2022.
8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner- husband submits that the respondent was humiliating the petitioner on the ground that he was an handicapped person. He submits that after the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent calling upon her to join him, she had filed a false criminal complaint against the petitioner and all his family members making false allegations. He submits that during the course of trial of the said criminal case, on the application filed by the respondent, the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC has been invoked against the petitioner and his family members and they are now tried for the said offence along with the other offences for which they were charge sheeted. He submits that the respondent also got another criminal complaint lodged by her mother against the petitioner 10 and his family members and in addition to the same, the respondent also lodged a complaint before the Karnataka Medical Council making false allegations against the petitioner. He submits that even in the work place of the petitioner, the respondent has created unwarranted scenes which have put the petitioner in embarrassment. He refers to Exs.R-24 & R-27 - medical documents and submits that a perusal of the same would clearly go to show that the respondent has forged the said documents to enable her to file false criminal complaint against the petitioner and his family members. He submits that the parties are residing separately for the last 13 years and they have no issue born from the wedlock, and therefore, at this point of time when the parties have no respect for each other, they cannot be asked to continue the marital tie and live under a common roof. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgments in the case of MALATHI RAVI, M.D. VS B.V.RAVI, M.D. - (2014)7 SCC 640, and SUBHRANSU SARKAR VS INDRANI SARKAR - AIR 2021 SC 4301.
11
9. In reply, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that merely for the reason that the parties are residing separately, that itself cannot be a ground for dissolution of the marriage. He submits that the respondent was always ready and willing to live with the petitioner and she therefore had also made a counter claim seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. He refers to Section 23 of the Act and submits that no relief can be granted to a person who tries to take advantage of his own wrong. He also refers to Ex.R-20 and submits that from the perusal of the same, it is very clear that the respondent had taken treatment for her head injury in the hospital at Tumakuru.
10. From the perusal of the averments made in the petition filed seeking a decree of divorce, it is seen that the petitioner has made allegations against the respondent that she was humiliating him on the ground that he is a physically handicapped person and she had lived with him in the matrimonial home only for a period of two months and thereafter she had gone to her parents house and though efforts were made by him to 12 bring her back, she had refused to join him. He has stated that the respondent was comparing him with others and always degrading him and repeatedly she used to tell that she wanted to marry some other person. He has also stated that the respondent was not cooperating for cohabitation and she was not interested in the same. He has stated that after he had made all his efforts to bring her back, he had issued a legal notice to her and on receipt of the same, she lodged a false criminal complaint against him and his parents and that these acts have caused serious mental agony to him. He has also stated that the respondent had removed the mangalasutra and thrown on him stating that she was not willing to continue her marital relationship with the petitioner and she was constantly threatening him stating that she will be lodging false criminal complaints against him and his family members. The averments made in the petition have been reiterated by the petitioner during the examination-in-chief and the respondent has not elicited anything from him so as to disbelieve the version of the petitioner.
13
11. A perusal of Exs.R-24 & R-27 would go to show that there is overwriting in the said document and the same appears to have been created for the purpose of lodging criminal prosecution against the petitioner. The respondent on receipt of the legal notice from the petitioner asking her to join him, has filed a criminal complaint against him and his family members and based on the said criminal complaint, the petitioner and his family members were charge sheeted and prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 498A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. During the course of trial of the said case, on an application filed by the respondent, Section 307 IPC has been invoked against the petitioner and his family members by the jurisdictional Trial Court trying the said criminal case and undisputedly, the petitioner and his family members are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC at present. It is also not in dispute that the mother of the respondent has also lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his family members which has resulted in registering a criminal case against them for the offences punishable under 14 Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with 149 IPC. In addition to the same, the respondent has also lodged a complaint before the Karnataka Medical Council against the petitioner who is a doctor and the complaint lodged is available at Ex.P-15 and a perusal of the same would go to show that a prayer is made to take action against the petitioner who is a practicing doctor registered with the Karnataka Medical Council.
12. From the aforesaid material, it is very clear that the respondent has lodged repeated complaints against the petitioner and his family members with an intention to harass them. The respondent being not satisfied with the criminal case registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 498A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, has during the course of her evidence made allegations that the petitioner had made attempt to kill her and based on such an evidence, an application was filed to prosecute the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC which was entertained by the Trial Court and the petitioner and his family 15 members are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in addition to the other offences originally mentioned in the charge sheet. Though the respondent has placed reliance on Ex.R-20 to contend that she had suffered head injury as a result of the assault made by the petitioner and she had taken treatment for the same in the hospital at Tumakuru, a perusal of the said document would go to show that the respondent had undergone scanning for the alleged head injury but the said document does not show that the respondent had actually suffered the head injury.
13. Further, from the perusal of Exs.R-24 & R-27, a serious doubt arises with regard to the genuineness of these medical documents produced by the respondent in order to establish that the petitioner had ill-treated her or assaulted her and as a result, she had suffered injuries. The documents appears to have been forged for ulterior purposes. In addition to filing criminal complaint, respondent also filed complaint before the Karnataka Medical Council and this would show that she has left no stone unturned in order to see that the petitioenr is 16 harassed and put to hardship. The overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record would make it very clear that the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty in a sustained manner and as a result, the petitioner was not only subjected to mental cruelty, but he was driven to a position to take a decision that he no longer would continue the marital relationship with the respondent. Though the respondent has contended that she was always ready and willing to join the petitioner and lead a marital life with him, her sustained acts of lodging complaints against the petitioner and abusing and humiliating him does not inspire any confidence about the truthfulness of the statement made by the respondent that she is ready and willing to join the petitioner.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAVI KUMAR VS JULMIDEVI - (2010) 4 SCC 476 has held that cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety, it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and words.
17
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAYADEVI VS JAGDISH PRASAD - AIR 2007 SC 1426 has held that the question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty.
16. In the case of V.BHAGAT VS D.BHAGAT (MRS) - (1994)1 SCC 337, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 16 has observed as under:
"16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged 18 party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made."
17. In the case of K.SRINIVAS RAO VS D.A.DEEPA
- (2013)5 SCC 226, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 10 & 29, has observed as under:
"10. Under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce on a petition presented either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the other party has, after solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. In a series of judgments this Court has repeatedly stated the meaning and outlined the scope of the term "cruelty". Cruelty is evident where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to cause in her or his mind reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse. Cruelty may be physical or mental.19
29. In our opinion, the High Court wrongly held that because the appellant husband and the respondent wife did not stay together there is no question of the parties causing cruelty to each other. Staying together under the same roof is not a precondition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse's life miserable......"
18. In Subhransu Sarkar's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the marriage between the parties is emotionally dead and when the wife who insisted to live with the husband has not made any meaningful effort for reconciliation, there is no point in persuading them to live together.
19. In Malathi Ravi's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 43 & 44 has observed as under:
"43. As we have enumerated the incidents, we are disposed to think that the husband has reasons to feel that he has been humiliated, for allegations have been made against him which are not correct; his relatives have been dragged into the matrimonial controversy, the assertions in the written statement 20 depict him as if he had tacitly conceded to have harboured notions of gender insensitivity or some kind of male chauvinism, his parents and he are ignored in the naming ceremony of the son, and he comes to learn from others that the wife had gone to Gulbarga to prosecute her studies. That apart, the communications, after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, indicate the attitude of the wife as if she is playing a game of chess. The launching of criminal prosecution can be perceived from the spectrum of conduct. The learned Magistrate has recorded the judgment of acquittal. The wife had preferred an appeal before the High Court after obtaining leave. After the State Government prefers an appeal in the Court of Session, she chooses to withdraw the appeal. But she intends, as the pleadings would show, that the case should reach the logical conclusion. This conduct manifestly shows the widening of the rift between the parties. It has only increased the bitterness. In such a situation, the husband is likely to lament in every breath and the vibrancy of life melts to give way to sad story of life.
44. From this kind of attitude and treatment it can be inferred that the husband has been treated with mental cruelty and definitely he has faced ignominy being an Associate Professor in a Government Medical College. When one enjoys social status working in a government hospital, this humiliation affects the reputation. That apart, it can be well imagined the slight he might be facing. In fact, the chain of events might have compelled him to go through the whole gamut of emotions. It certainly must have hurt his self-respect and human sensibility. The sanguine concept of marriage presumably has become illusory and it would not be inapposite to say that the wife has shown 21 anaemic emotional disposition to the husband. Therefore, the decree of divorce granted by the High Court deserves to be affirmed singularly on the ground of mental cruelty."
20. In the case of MANGAYAKARASI VS M.YUVARAJ - AIR 2020 SC 1198, on which reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent to contend that merely for the reason that the parties are residing separately, that itself cannot be a ground for granting a decree of divorce, it has been held in paragraph 15 as under:
"15. It cannot be in doubt that in an appropriate case the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other allegation has been made and the husband and his family members are exposed to criminal litigation and ultimately if it is found that such allegation is unwarranted and without basis and if that act of the wife itself forms the basis for the husband to allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him, certainly, in such circumstance if a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is tendered before the original court to allege mental cruelty it could well be appreciated for the purpose of dissolving the marriage on that ground.
21. For the purpose of proving cruelty, the Court has to appreciate the overall material available on record and has to find out as to whether the respondent has 22 treated the petitioner in a manner which would not only make his life miserable, but he also finds it impossible to lead a normal married life with the respondent. The word 'cruelty' has not been defined for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act and there is no straight jacket formula for determining cruelty meted out by the other party and the same is required to be assessed on the basis of the material available on record depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the material on record would go to show that the respondent not only constantly ill-treated the petitioner, but she was also in the habit of humiliating him and in addition to the same, she has lodged criminal complaint as well as a complaint before the Karnataka Medical Council for taking action against the petitioner. Therefore, the judgments relied upon the learned Counsel for the respondent-wife are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
22. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty before the 23 Family Court, and therefore, the Family Court was fully justified in allowing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
23. Since we have already upheld the judgment of the Family Court granting the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, the counter claim made by the respondent seeking the relief of restitution of conjugal rights has to fail. Though the respondent-wife has expressed even before this Court that she wants to go back to the petitioner and lead a marital life, the same is not possible and the petitioner is not willing to take her back. The manner in which the respondent has conducted herself after the marriage and the aggression she has shown in filing the criminal complaints and also the complaint before the Karnataka Medical Council would go to show that there was no genuineness in her prayer for restitution of conjugal rights. The multiple efforts made by this Court for conciliation has failed.
24. A reading of Section 9 of the Act makes it very clear that for the purpose of granting the relief under 24 Section 9 of the Act, the Court considering the petition is required to be satisfied of the truth of the statements made in the said petition and the party approaching the court seeking restitution of conjugal rights is also required to prove that the other party has withdrawn from his/her society without reasonable excuse. We have already held that the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty after solemnization of their marriage, and therefore, it cannot be said that he had no reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of the respondent and further the claim appears to be too desolate, unreal and not genuine, and therefore, the truthfulness in the statement made in the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights also therefore becomes very doubtful. Under the circumstances, we also hold that the Family Court was justified in dismissing the counter claim of the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMESH CHANDRA RAMPRATAPJI DAGA VS RAMESHWARI RAMESH CHANDRA DAGA - AIR 2005 SC 25 422, has held that when by court intervention under the Hindu Marriage Act, affectation or disruption to the marital status has come by, at that juncture, while passing the decree, it undoubtedly has the power to grant permanent alimony or maintenance, if that power is invoked at that time.
26. Section 25 of the Act is an enabling provision, which empowers the court to consider at the time of passing any decree, whether or not to grant permanent alimony or maintenance.
27. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of AMIT VINAY WELANGI VS MRS.NUPUR AMIT WELANGI REPORTED - AIR 2018 KAR 156 has held that while granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband, permanent alimony can be granted in favour of a wife even if she has not filed an application.
28. The Family Court considering the material available on record and also the status of the parties and the cost of living, has awarded an amount of Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony to the respondent. The petitioner 26 is a doctor by profession and the respondent who was a qualified engineer, working in a multinational company, is now a practicing advocate, and considering their respective status, the Family Court was fully justified in awarding permanent alimony of Rs.15 lakhs to the respondent and the same needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the following order:
All the three appeals are dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE KK