PANKAJ KUMAR SINHA S/O SRI BIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA R/O INDRAPURI, ROAD NO.4, PO Vs. ANUPAMA DEVI D/O SHIVJI PRASAD SINHA R/O NEW MADHUKAM, ROAD NO.5, NEAR CROWN PUBLIC SCHOOL PO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Not only there is delay of 417 days in filing F.A. No.102 of 2015 impugning the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2014 passed in Matrimonial Title Suit No.76 of 2013 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, condonation thereof is sought through I.A. No. 3670 of 2015 and we, after perusing the averments made in the said application, do not find any cause, much less sufficient cause to condone the said huge delay, even on merits also, we have considered the case of the appellant.

(2.) The appellant initially sought a decree of divorce against the respondent-wife under Sections 13(1-A)(i) and (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 inter alia on many grounds however, vide order dated 15.02.2012 Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, instead of decreeing matrimonial suit for grant of decree of divorce, the alternative relief of judicial separation was granted to the appellant. He after lapse of one year, filed Matrimonial Title Suit No.76 of 2013 for a decree of divorce, which now stands allowed vide impugned judgment dated 16.04.2014. The appellant, however, has been directed to pay Rs.1 Lac as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife besides, returning the motorcycle bearing Registration No. JH 01P 0860 given to him at the time of marriage. The appellant thereafter, moved an application for modification of the said order vis-a-vis the amount of Rs.1 Lac awarded in favour of the respondent-wife as permanent alimony. The Principal Judge vide order dated 11.05.2015 dismissed the said application primarily on the settled principle of law that the trial court cannot modify the said order having no inherent power to do so. In the said order, it is observed by the learned Principal Judge that the appellant is a land broker and earns Rs. 50,000.00 per month and that he had otherwise not paid Rs. 800.00 per month to the respondent-wife, which was granted by the Court.

(3.) What appears to us is that keeping all the facts and circumstances while dissolving the marriage by decree of divorce, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi directed the appellant to pay Rs.1 Lac as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife. We thus, find no flaw in the impugned-judgment on merits as well.