R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2017
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
M.F.A.No.3929/2017 (FC)
BETWEEN :
SRI DANIEL ANAND
S/O JAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT # 576, RAMABHAI NAGARA
MYSORE-570008. … APPELLANT
(BY SMT.S.SUSHEELA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SMT.G.N.SUJATHA
W/O DANIEL ANAND
D/O NARASIMHA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT No.122/A, RAILWAY QUARTERS
MYSORE SOUTH, MYSORE-570008. …RESPONDENT
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 55(1) OF THE
DIVORCE ACT 1869 SECTION 19(c) OF THE FAMILY COURTS
ACT 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
01.02.2017 PASSED IN M.C.75/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER Section 10(1)(x) OF THE DIVORCE ACT, FOR
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE.
2
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON
05.07.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and
order passed by the I-Additional Prl. Family Court,
Mysuru (‘Family Court’ for short) in M.C.No.75/2014
directing the appellant herein to pay permanent alimony
of Rs.5 lakhs to the respondent.
2. Facts in brief are:
The appellant and the respondent got married to
each other as per Christian Customary Rights on
28.12.2016 at Bethel Brothern Church,
Krishnamurthypuram, Mysuru. The couple had a
female child by name Grace Jacintha in the wedlock,
who is now aged about 8 years. Due to the matrimonial
disharmony between the couple, the appellant herein
filed petition under Section 10 (1) (x) of the Divorce Act,
1869 (the ‘Act’ for short) before the Family Court. So
3
also, the respondent filed C.Misc.No.437/2014 against
the appellant claiming maintenance. The Court below
clubbed both the petitions and passed common
judgment and order on 01.02.2017. The petition filed by
the appellant for divorce was allowed and the
C.Misc.No.437/2014 filed by the respondent for
maintenance was dismissed. However, while granting
the decree of divorce, the Court below directed the
appellant herein to pay permanent alimony of Rs.5
lakhs. The said portion of the order directing the
appellant to pay permanent alimony of Rs.5 lakhs to the
respondent is challenged herein.
3. The learned counsel Smt.S.Susheela
appearing for the appellant challenged the impugned
order, quantifying the permanent alimony, on two
grounds. Firstly, Section 37 of the Act do not entitle the
wife to claim for permanent alimony, where the
husband has filed the petition for divorce. Placing
4
reliance on Section 37 of the Act, the learned counsel
vehemently argued that the Family Court exceeded its
jurisdiction in awarding the permanent alimony to the
wife exercising the power under Section 37 of the Act.
Secondly, it was contended that the respondent is
capable of earning, being a beautician whereas the
appellant is only a taxi driver not having the assured
income. In addition to that, the appellant has to take
care of his mother and child who are dependent on him.
In the absence of any material placed on record by the
respondent, to establish the factum of income of the
appellant, permanent alimony of Rs.5 lakhs awarded by
the Court below is wholly unsustainable. Thus, the
learned counsel sought for setting aside the order
impugned, awarding permanent alimony, allowing the
appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record.
5
5. As regards the first point, we find it apt to
refer to the legal dictionary to ascertain the meaning of
the expression “alimony” and the same is extracted
hereunder.
“Alimony. In a legal sense, it is taken
for that allowance which a married woman
sues for and is entitled to, upon separation
from her husband; the allowance made to the
wife out of her husband’s estate for her
support, either during a matrimonial suit, or
at its termination, when she proves herself
entitled to a separate maintenance.”
6. Thus, Permanent alimony is the support
given to the wife under the provisions of the Act, post
divorce, to ensure a decent life to the wife. It is the
support to the wife lest she suffering vagrancy if, she is
not able to maintain herself. It is well settled position of
law by now that the amount of permanent alimony must
be sufficient to ensure that a woman lives with dignity
after separating from her husband. As regards granting
6
of permanent alimony to the wife under the provisions
of the Act is considered, the issue is no more res integra,
in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of Mrs.Margaret Pereira V/s. Mr.Gerald
Castelino in MFA.10115/2011 (DD 04.08.2015). The
relevant para is extracted herein:
“8. We have given our anxious
consideration to the rival submissions made
at the Bar. The contention that the wife is not
entitled for permanent alimony in a case
where dissolution of marriage is granted in
favour of the husband, may not be the correct
proposition. Sections 36 to 39 of the Act cover
the subject of alimony to an aggrieved wife.
While Section 36 deals with alimony
pendente lite to the wife, Section 37 deals
with permanent alimony to a wife where a
decree of dissolution of marriage or decree of
judicial separation is obtained by the wife.
Section 38 is the relevant provision for the
present circumstances, which reads thus:
“38. Court may direct payment
of alimony to wife or to her
7
trustee.- In all cases in which the
Court makes any decree or order
for alimony, it may direct the
same to be paid either to the wife
herself, or to any trustee on her
behalf to be approved by the
Court, and may impose any terms
or restrictions which to the Court
seem expedient, and may from
time to time appoint a new
trustee, if it appears to be the
Court expedient so to do.”
A plain reading of the above provision
would contemplate that the Court may order
permanent alimony either to her or to her
trustee in any case instituted either by the
wife or by the husband. The statute expressly
or impliedly does not debar a wife, who was
respondent in divorce petition for permanent
alimony
9. The court below has rejected her
application mainly on the ground that already
she is enjoying maintenance amount by virtue
of an order passed by the jurisdictional
J.M.F.C.Court, therefore, she is not entitled for
separate permanent alimony. In our
considered opinion, the court below
misdirected itself in equating the provisions of
8
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
to that of Section 38 of Indian Divorce Act.
While Section 125(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.
contemplates maintenance amount to a wife,
who is unable to maintain herself,
Explanation (b) of the very same provision
contemplates that “wife” includes a woman,
who has been divorced by or has obtained a
divorce from her husband and has not re-
married. The maintenance amount ordered in
a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is
monthly allowance as provided in second
proviso to same Section. Under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C., there is no provision to order
permanent alimony. Though an order is
passed in favour of wife under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. unless the husband defaults and
monthly allowance becomes due, the wife
cannot invoke Section 128 of Cr.P.C. to
recover the maintenance amount. It is only on
default on the part of the husband to pay
maintenance, she can execute the
maintenance order under Section 128 of
Cr.P.C. for recovery of amount within
limitation period of 11 months from the date
9
of default. Whereas, under Section 37 of the
Act either a permanent alimony or monthly or
weekly payment is possible. When Sections
37 and 38 of the Act are read in conjunction
with each other, the relief of payment of
alimony applies to all cases, as available
under Section 37 of the Act. In our considered
opinion, this Court could not have out rightly
rejected to apply the benefit of Section 38 in
favour of the wife on the ground that she has
the order of maintenance passed by the JMFC
Court. It was still possible for the Court to
pass an order under Section 38 keeping in
view the amount of maintenance passed by
the JMFC Court. In that view of the matter,
we are of the considered opinion that the
Court below has to hold an enquiry about the
question of permanent alimony after giving
opportunity to both the parties.
10. At this juncture, we have noticed
that the wife had invoked the provision of
Section 37 of the Act seeking permanent
maintenance of Rs.30 lakhs. But the provision
applicable in the present circumstances of the
10
husband’s petition for divorce being decreed,
is Section 38 of the Act. However, quoting a
wrong provision of law shall not disentitle the
party to the relief for which he/she is
entitled.”
7. We are of the view that purposive approach
to the provisions of the Act would sub-serve achieving
the objects of the Act rather than the literal
construction. Cardinal Rule of construction is that the
statute has to be read as a harmonious whole to
ascertain the legislative intent. A conjoint reading of the
Sections 36 to 39 of the Act makes it clear that there is
no legal impediment or embargo under the Act for a
wife, respondent in divorce petition, to seek for
permanent alimony. Accordingly, the first contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be
negated and is accordingly rejected.
8. As regards the second point, as aforesaid the
relevant factors which are required to be examined
11
while granting permanent alimony are: (1) Financial
condition; (2) The standard of living of the parties; (3)
The length of the marriage; (4) The age of the parties; (5)
Physical condition of the parties; and (6) Ability of the
person to support the recipient. It is significant to note
that in a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
set a benchmark in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury
-v- Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy reported in AIR
2017 SC 2383, it is held that 25% of the income of the
husband would be an appropriate maintenance amount
to the wife. The Family Court has considered the
evidence on record to quantify the amount towards the
permanent alimony which is the amount based on the
financial ability of the person qua the status, the
dependency of the wife coupled with the inflation in
consumer prices and value of the money, the
maintenance amount quantified at Rs.5 lakhs, at any
stretch of imagination cannot be considered as
excessive or exorbitant. Accordingly, we are not inclined
12
to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Court
below.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands
dismissed as devoid of merits.
IA-2/2017 seeking for stay of the impugned order
do not survive for consideration in view of the dismissal
of the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NC.