SMT. SUNITA JUNEJA D/O LATE SHER CHANDRA TANEJA W/O HARISH KUMAR JUNEJA Vs. HARISH KUMAR S/O SHRI SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2010, passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Civil Suit No. 100 of 2003, whereby said court has decreed the suit of divorce filed by the present Respondent Harish Kumar, and further directed that he (Harish Kumar) shall pay lumpsum alimony amounting of ' one lakh to Sunita Juneja (Appellant).

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. Brief facts of the case, are that, the Appellant Sunita Juneja got married to Respondent Harish Kumar in the year 1997, following Hindu rites. Two daughters were born out of the wedlock, who are living with their father (Harish Kumar). In the year 2003, Harish Kumar (present Respondent) filed a petition for divorce against the Appellant under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of physical and mental cruelty. The said suit was contested by the Appellant in which the marriage with present Respondent, and birth of the children was admitted by her. However, she pleaded that she was subjected to cruelty due to the non fulfillment of demand of dowry, and ousted from her husband's house. The trial court framed following issues:

(3.) WE have gone through the evidence on record and considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. The plea taken by the husband that he was subjected to cruelty gets corroborated from the documentary evidence on record particularly relating to the facts that criminal cases were registered against him by his wife in which he was acquitted. Learned Counsel for the present Respondent submitted that the husband had to go to jail before the trial of the criminal case was concluded. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error of law committed by the trial court, in coming to the conclusion that the husband was subjected to cruelty at the hands of his wife (present Appellant). However, considering the economic status of the present Respondent and that of the Appellant, this Court is of the view that the amount of lumpsum alimony deserves to be allowed to do complete justice between the parties. The husband (present Respondent) is running a shop in which fruit juice is sold. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that atleast ' two lakh should have been directed to be paid as one time alimony. But this Court considering the fact that two daughters are also with their father, thinks it just and proper to enhance the one time lumpsum alimony only by Rs. 50,000/ -