SMT. AMITA PANI @ KAR Vs. KEDARNATH KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Smt. Amita Pani @ Kar has filed the present appeal against the order and judgment dated 6.3.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 326 of 2001, by which the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application filed by the Respondent -Kedarnath Kar under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage with the present Appellant with a further direction that the Respondent -husband shall pay Rest. 1,00,000/ - to the wife -respondent No. 1 towards her permanent alimony, within two months from the date of the order, failing which to pay monthly maintenance to the wife (present Appellant) at the rate of Rest. 600/ - per month.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant, inter alias, asserted that while the learned Judge, Family Court, in the impugned order has arrived at a finding that husband -husband was unable to prove his allegations against wife -wife, he ought not to have allowed the application and granted the decree of divorce. He further submitted that while the allegations of extra marital relationship had been made both, i.e. by husband -husband as well as by wife -wife, the said allegations were made out of anger and frustration and since there is nothing on record to indicate that the parties expressed their unwillingness to live together, the decree of divorce ought not to have passed and the trial court should have given another chance to the parties to attempt re -conciliation and re -union since the parties were separated only four months after their marriage.

(3.) Learned Counsel for husband -husband, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment but pressed his cross objection challenging the quantum of alimony fixed by the trial court and stated that the Respondent is not in a financial position to comply with the said direction and stated that the determination made by the Judge, Family Court of the Respondent's income at Rest. 30,000/ - per annum, was erroneous and the Judge, Family Court ought to have accepted the certificate granted by the Tahasildar to the Respondent, certifying the Respondent's annual income at Rest. 10,000/ -. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the quantum of alimony/maintenance, ought to be suitably reduced.