LAWS(ORI)-2016-7-84

MANAS RANJAN SETHI Vs. ARPITA PRAGYAN PARAMITA

Decided On July 28, 2016
Manas Ranjan Sethi Appellant
V/S
Arpita Pragyan Paramita Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Matrimonial Appeal is filed by the appellant-husband against the judgment and order dated 23.4.2011 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No.96 of 2011 (Matrimonial Case No.687 of 2006) involving a decree of divorce with permanent alimony of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) in favour of the respondent-wife. The Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar while allowing the decree for divorce, directed the appellant to pay within a month Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) to the respondent-wife towards her permanent alimony with a further direction to the appellant for depositing a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) in the name of each of his daughters in fixed deposit scheme and to hand over the fixed deposit certificates to the respondent making the respondent as the nominee in respect of the fixed deposit.

(2.) Short fact involved in the case is that the respondent is the wife of the appellant. Their marriage was solemnised on 22.6.2003 following Hindu Rites and Customs. The appellant being a Doctor, is suffering a conviction under dowry related offences on the report of the respondent and was consequently placed under suspension. Having lost any hope for re-union, the respondent filed petition under Section 13(1). (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce along with grant of permanent alimony to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs). The matter was decided on contest by passing the order of decree for divorce along with permanent alimony as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) Pursuant to notice, respondent appeared in the matter and while the matter was pending for consideration, the appellant in different spells paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) in partial compliance of the direction contained in the judgment impugned. During course of hearing of the matter on 4.5.2015, a submission was made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that his client is ready to pay the residue amount provided the respondent agrees to the proposal that such payment would be the full and final settlement of all the lis, be it criminal or revenue. Following such development and as the respondent was not prepared to respond to the call of the Court, the matter was deferred giving chance to the respondent for taking a decision in the matter. The matter was next taken up on 8.7.2015. Upon considering the submissions made by the respondent-wife, who was present in person in Court and as the advocates were on strike, consequently there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant-husband, the matter was further deferred directing the parties to appear in person with specific direction to the appellant to come along with a Bank Draft of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) in the name of the respondent-wife.