MANOJ PATI Vs. ANJALI NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Matrimonial Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (for short, 'Act 1984') has come to be filed assailing the judgment and order dated 05.04.2016 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi in C.P. No.46 of 2015 allowing an application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'Act, 1955'), thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties to this appeal by decree of divorce and directing the appellant ( for short, 'husband') to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.7.00 lakh to the wife, namely, Anjali Nayak (respondent herein) and her daughter towards permanent alimony and maintenance. The appellant in this case essentially challenges the quantum of permanent alimony directed to be paid by him.

(2.) The respondent herein, namely, Smt. Anajali Nayak (for short 'wife') in her application (C.P.No.46 of 2015) under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, contended that marriage between the parties, namely, the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 24.02.2012 as per Hindu customs and rites. They were blessed with a daughter. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh along with gold ornaments of 8.5 tolas was given by the father of the respondent-wife and besides that, household articles worth Rs.3.00 lakh were also given at the time of marriage. Immediately after the marriage, the family of the appellant-husband demanded Rs.5.00 lakh to run the educational institution established and managed by their family. Since the respondent expressed her inability to bring such a huge amount from her parents, she was subjected to mental and physical torture. As an attempt was made to do away with her life by setting her ablaze, a case under Section 498A/326/307/34 of IPC was registered. The respondent (wife) had also filed a case under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'Act 2005'). Since there was no possibility of leading a happy conjugal life and for safety of the life and limbs of their daughter, she filed the proceeding under Sections 13 and 25 of the Act, 1955 for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) The husband (appellant herein) filed his written statement admitting the marriage with the respondent, but denied the allegation of demand of dowry and torture alleged to be meted out to the wife. It was contended in the written statement filed by the husband that the wife was always insisting to stay separately from other family members. As the husband was living in a joint family and he had no independent source of income, he did not agree to the proposal. To put pressure on him and on his family members, the wife was always threatening him to rope in the entire family in criminal case on the allegation of demand of dowry and domestic violence. The husband also denied other allegations made by the wife.