RANJAN KUMAR ROUTRAY Vs. MADHUMITA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (husband) has assailed the judgment and decree dtd. 19/8/2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceedings No. 389 of 2010, by which the learned Judge while passing the order of dissolution of marriage, directed the appellant herein to pay Rs.35,00,000.00 (thirty five lakhs only) towards permanent alimony to the respondent (wife) with a further direction to return all the articles except cost of dress materials, barat expenses and expense of sarees or in lieu thereof pay Rs.5,00,000.00 (rupees five lakhs) towards the cost of the materials to the respondent (wife).

(2.) The present appellant (husband) was the respondent before the Family Court. The wife (present respondent) filed the aforesaid proceeding praying for a decree for dissolution of marriage with the present appellant. The facts in nutshell of the petitioner (wife) before the Family Court are that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and opposite party on 13/3/2000. After some days of marriage, demanding further dowry, physical and mental torture was made on the petitioner and even she was not being provided with food and clothing. The husband was used to come in drunken condition in night and on one occasion i.e., on 25/3/2000, when she suffered from malaria fever, due to some medicines given to her by the husband, some serious mental tension developed in the wife. The husband then used to call her as 'Pagili' and as the torture became intolerable, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home on 3/8/2003 and since then she is staying separately in her parents' house. It is also alleged that in the meantime, the husband (opposite party) has married to another lady, namely, Debaki Routray and out of the said wedlock, one female child, namely, Supriya Routray has born. The husband had also filed one Civil Proceedings vide C.P. No. 766/2003 before the Family Court, Cuttack, which was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The wife has also filed one criminal case vide G.R. Case No. 113/2004 before the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and another proceedings under Sec. 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act vide C.P. No. 493 of 2004 and husband had also filed another C.P. No. 508 of 2004. But both these Civil Proceedings filed before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack were dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

(3.) Be that as it may, the present dispute in question i.e. C.P. No. 389 of 2010 was initially filed by the petitioner (wife) praying for restitution of conjugal rights under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but later the petitioner knowing the fact of second marriage by the opposite party (husband), filed an application for conversion of the same to a petition under Sec. 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act with a prayer for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.