SHIKHARESH CHANDRA ROY Vs. ANTARA PURKAYASTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the proceedings stem from the judgment and order dated 21.01.2012 rendered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati (hereinafter for short also referred to as the learned Court below). As is patent from the rival orientations, the focus of the competing analysis is the permanent alimony accordable to the respondent-cross objector herein. We have heard Mr. A.P. Lahiri, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. S.D. Choudhury, Advocate and Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the cross-objector assisted by Ms. J. Purkayastha, Advocate.

(2.) Sans the inessential details having regard to the limited contour of appraisal in the instant adjudicative pursuit, it is suffice to record that the cross-objector, contending that she was the married wife of the appellant, the ceremony having been solemnized on 15.04.2007 at Guwahati had sought for a decree for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Act), before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup at Guwahati. The petition registered as FC (Civil) Case No. 396/ 2009 embodied assertions in support of the relief sought for imputing physical and mental cruelty as the central ground therefor. She stated that in course of the negotiation for the marriage broached by the parents of the appellant, it was represented that he was a businessman with monthly income of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- and that in order to develop his new business, he was willing to marry the cross-objector considering her experience in the sales sector. According to her, she at the relevant point of time was working as an Advisor in Bazaz Alliance Insurance Company at Guwahati with handsome income. The proposal eventually materialized and the marriage between the parties was ceremonised as per the Hindu rites and customs. She averred that as sought for by him, her parents paid an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to expand his existing business. The cross-objector further averred that subsequent to the marriage she came to learn that the appellant did not have any permanent business and that though it was represented earlier that he had a monthly income of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-, his family including his mother was dependent on the pension amount of his deceased father. She however in categorical terms stated that the appellant had sufficient landed property at Varanasi.

(3.) The narration pertaining to the allegation of cruelty not being relevant for the present exercise does not call for any dilation. As the appellant initially failed to appear in the proceedings before the learned Court below and take timely steps, it was ordered to proceed ex parte against him. On his prayer however, he was allowed to file his written statement through his learned counsel. The appellant in his written statement denied the marriage between the parties and strongly refuted the imputations bearing on the accusation of cruelty leveled against him. While admitting the receipt of Rs. 1 lakh from the cross-objector towards contribution as capital in his business, he referred to her only as a new partner in the enterprise. He denied any physical relationship with the cross-objector citing his physical disability incurred from Polio and repudiated her endeavour for a decree for divorce as one to reap wrongful gains. He denied to own any landed property and also any income from business and instead alleged that the cross-objector had taken away the total working capital along with the accounts of the concerned firm and the keys of the locker of the bank.