SWETA KUMARI @ SHWETA KUMARI Vs. NIRAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties. Both the appeals arise out of judgment and order of Family Court, Bettiah, West Champaran dated 30th October, 2007 in Divorce Case Nos. 42 of 2003/18 of 2005. Sweta Kumari wife of Niraj Kumar has challenged grant of Divorce and has prayer for higher alimony. The other side wants reduction in alimony.

(2.) Learned court below, while granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband, had granted permanent alimony of rupees five lakhs. Half of the amount was paid by the husband as recorded in the order passed on 8.5.2009 in the appeal preferred by the husband. For remaining half, today a demand draft in the name of the wife Sweta Kumari dated 27.2.2012 drawn upon the State Bank of India, Danapur branch has been produced by learned counsel for the husband and handed over to learned counsel for Sweta Kumari. For receipt of the said demand draft, counsel for the appellant-Sweta Kumari shall make an endorsement to that effect in the order-sheet of Misc. Appeal No. 49 of 2010. Since Sweta Kumari is present in court, her counsel has handed over the draft to her in the court itself.

(3.) Although the appeal preferred by the wife Sweta Kumari is directed against the entire judgment and order dated 30th October, 2007 whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah has allowed Divorce Case Nos. -42/2003/ 18/2005 filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the wife declined to cross-examine Niraj Kumar (husband) and she stated to the court that she does not wish to cross-examine him and consented that the witness may be discharged. She further orally stated in the court that she understood that not cross-examining the witness Niraj Kumar may be fatal for her case but even then she was not willing to cross-examine him. Since P.W. 1 deposed in favour of his case and was not cross-examined, he did not adduce further evidence. Sweta Kumari has not deposed to contest the claim for divorce nor she produced any evidence on her behalf. Her only insistence was that final order disposing of the case may be passed considering her petition dated 5.10.2007. In view of uncontroverted evidence of the husband, Niraj Kumar, the court below rightly considered all the facts and circumstances appearing on the record and granted decree of divorce. That part of the judgment cannot be faulted with.