SUSMITA PRASAD Vs. RAJU PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against part of order/judgment dtd. 31/3/2023 and decree dtd. 12/4/2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Ranchi Cum Additional Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 449 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Principal Judge while allowing the suit which has been preferred for dissolution of marriage, has directed the respondent-husband to pay permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.12.00 lacs to the appellant-wife and if any amount already paid to the appellant-wife that was directed to be adjusted from the amount of permanent alimony so awarded. It has further been held that this order of permanent alimony will not affect the order regarding payment of Rs.8000.00 per month to the son namely Ishan Aryan Prasad @ Maruti.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the original suit, needs to be referred herein reads, which reads as under:

(3.) The petitioner-appellant married with respondent on 15/7/2010 according to Hindu rites and customs in presence of family members, relatives, friends of both the parties Ranchi and thereafter, the marriage was registered on 20/7/2010 at Court of Collector and Marriage Officer, Bhopal. After marriage, both the parties lived together as husband and wife and their marriage was consummated at residence of respondent-husband. Out of the said wedlock, one male child namely Ishan Aryan Prasad @ Maruti was born on 10/11/2012. It is alleged by the appellant-wife that from the very beginning of marriage, the respondent-husband behaved very indecently and inappropriately towards the appellant-wife. It is alleged that the respondent-husband used to get drunk alcohol frequently and assault the petitioner mercilessly. It is further alleged that respondent-husband denied access of money to the appellant-wife and he also kept her entirely out from the neighbour and friends residing at his working place city in Thane, Maharashtra and if he found the appellant talking over telephone to her parents he used to assault her.