MANJARI SEKSARIA Vs. GAURAV SEKSARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional application is directed against the Order No. 50 dated 09.09.2010 passed by learned Family Court, Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No. 221 of 2003. Respondent/husband filed a Matrimonial Suit No. 221 of 2003 against the petitioner/wife praying for decree of divorce. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for alimony for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) for her monthly maintenance and Rs. 1,50,000/-(rupees one lakh fifty thousand) for the maintenance of her mentally retarded daughter and Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) towards litigation cost. Learned trial court by the impugned order rejected the prayer for alimony pendente lite and also for litigation cost.

(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner/wife has preferred this Revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner/wife that the petitioner/wife received a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- from her husband/opposite party in terms of agreement for the purpose of purchasing a separate flat for her separate residence. She purchased the said flat at the cost of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-. The said amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- is not at all for her alimony/maintenance. Therefore, it is submitted that learned trial court was wrong in rejecting the prayer of maintenance and litigation cost. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner/wife that Hon'ble Court in C.O. No. 1324 of 2005 with CAN 5989 of 2006 has also held that the petitioner/wife shall purchase a flat for her separate accommodation out of the amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- and, therefore, the order of learned trial court rejecting the prayer for alimony/maintenance on the ground of payment of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as one time settlement suffers from illegality and impropriety and the said order should be set aside and necessary order may be passed for allowing alimony and litigation cost.