JALENDRA PADHIARY versus PRAGATI CHHOTRAY on 17 April 2018

490

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 3 S.C.R.

A

JALENDRA PADHIARY

v.

PRAGATI CHHOTRAY

(Civil Appeal No. 3876 of 2018)

BAPRIL 17, 2018

[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

Judgment/Order – Reasoned Order – Family Court passed adecree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of appellant-husbandand respondent-wife – The Court also directed the appellant-Chusband to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- and litigationexpenses of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-wife – Aggrieved withthe part of order which directed appellant to pay permanent alimony,appellant filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court,which was dismissed – Whether the Division Bench of the HighDCourt was justified in dismissing the appellant’s appeal in limineand thereby upholding the order of the Family Court insofar as itrelated to awarding permanent alimony to the respondent-wife –Held: No – On perusal of the order of the Family Court and theHigh Court, it would show that both Courts failed to apply theirjudicial mind to the factual and legal controversy insofar as awardEof permanent alimony to the respondent-wife is concerned – Boththe Courts did not even mention the factual narration of the caseset up by the parties on the question of award of permanent alimonyand without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoningand categorical findings on the material issues such as, financialFearning capacity of wife, a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by wayof permanent alimony to the wife was given – Direction whollyunsustainable in law – Neither the Family Court nor the High Courtconsidered the legal principles applicable to the issues involvedand passed cryptic and unreasoned orders.

GAllowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Mere perusal of the order of the Family Courtand the High Court would go to show that both the Courts failedto apply their judicial mind to the factual and legal controversyinsofar as award of permanent alimony to the respondent(wife) is H

concerned. Both the Courts did not even mention the factualnarration of the case set up by the parties on the question ofaward of permanent alimony and without there being anydiscussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings onthe material issues such as, financial earning capacity of husbandto pay the alimony and also the financial earning capacity of wife,a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony tothe wife was given. Such direction is wholly unsustainable in law.[Para 15] [494-B-D]

2. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courtsthe need to pass reasoned order in every case, which must containthe narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis,the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by theparties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved andthe reasons in support of the findings recorded based onappreciation of evidence on all the material issues arising in thecase. [Para 16] [494-E]

3. Neither the Family Court nor the High Court kept inmind these legal principles and passed cryptic and unreasonedorders. Such orders undoubtedly cause prejudice to the partiesand in this case, it caused prejudice to the appellant(husband)because the orders of the High Court and Family Court deprivedhim to know the reasons for fixing the permanent alimony amountof Rs.15,00,000/- payable to his wife. [Para 17] [494-F]

4. The manner in which both the Courts passed the ordercannot be countenanced and thus the matter is remanded to theFamily Court to decide the quantum of payment of permanentalimony afresh in accordance with law keeping in view theobservations made supra. [Paras 18, 19] [494-G; 495-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3876of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2014 of the High Courtof Orissa at Cuttack in MATA No. 113 of 2014.

Kumar Gaurav, B. N. Dubey, Robin Khokhar, Advs. for theAppellant.

Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. for the Respondent.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated03.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in M.A.T.A.No.113 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissedthe appeal filed by the appellant herein in limine at the stage of admission,Bin consequence, upheld the order dated 17.09.2014 passed by the FamilyCourt, Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No.24 of 2011.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and it would beclear from the facts stated hereinbelow.

4. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondent is theCdefendant in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises. The dispute isbetween the husband and wife and it relates to award of permanentalimony payable to wife.

5. The appellant-husband filed a petition against the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafterDreferred to as “the Act”) before the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswarseeking decree for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertionand cruelty. The respondent filed her written statement and denied thematerial averments of the appellant’s claim. On the basis of the pleadingsand the evidence adduced by the parties, the Family Judge, by orderEdated 17.09.2014, allowed the petition and passed a decree of divorceby dissolving the marriage. The Family Judge also directed theappellant(husband) to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- andlitigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent(wife).

6. The appellant(husband), felt aggrieved by that part of the orderof the Family Court by which the appellant was directed to pay permanentFalimony of Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent(wife), filed appeal beforethe Division Bench of the High Court. By judgment/decree dated03.11.2014, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant’sappeal and affirmed the order of the Family Court.

7. Against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, theGappellant(husband) has filed this appeal by way of special leave in thisCourt.

8. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissingthe appellant’s appeal in limine and thereby upholding the order of theH

Family Judge insofar as it related to awarding permanent alimony ofRs.15,00,000/- to the wife(respondent).

9. Heard Mr. Kumar Gaurav, learned counsel for the appellantand Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, learned counsel for the respondent.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, setaside the impugned order as also the order of the Family Court to theextent it fixes the award of permanent alimony and remand the case tothe Family Court for deciding the question of grant of permanent alimonypayable to wife afresh on merits in accordance with law.

11. The operative portion of the order of the Family Court readsas under:

“The petition of the petitioner is allowed on contest in favourof the petitioner. A decree of divorce is passed and themarriage between the petitioner and the respondent ishereby declared dissolved with effect from the date ofdecree. The petitioner is directed to pay permanent alimonyof Rs.15,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- tothe respondent.”

(emphasis supplied)

12. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court reads asunder:

“After looking into the allegations made and pleadings takenby the parties, as recorded in the impugned judgment, whichduring the course of argument could not be snipped, we donot find any reason to interfere with the amount ofRs.15,00,000/- awarded as permanent alimony to the wifeby the learned Judge, Family Court. In the present time,the said amount is wholly insufficient for the wife to maintainher entire life.

Since we do not find any merit in the appeal, we dismissthe same in limine at the very stage of admission.”

13. The only question involved in the appeal before the High Court,which was carried to this Court in this appeal by the appellant (husband),was whether the award of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- by the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AFamily Court to the respondent(wife) was legally and factuallysustainable.

14. Insofar as the grant of decree of divorce in favour of thehusband is concerned, it was not challenged by the respondent (wife) inappeal before the High Court and hence it attained finality.

B

15. In our view, mere perusal of the order of the Family Courtand the High Court quoted supra, would go to show that both the Courtsfailed to apply their judicial mind to the factual and legal controversyinsofar as award of permanent alimony to the respondent(wife) isconcerned. Both the Courts did not even mention the factual narrationCof the case set up by the parties on the question of award of permanentalimony and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoningand categorical findings on the material issues such as, financial earningcapacity of husband to pay the alimony and also the financial earningcapacity of wife, a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way of permanentalimony to the wife was given. In our opinion, such direction is whollyDunsustainable in law.

16. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts theneed to pass reasoned order in every case, which must contain thenarration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issuesarising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principlesEapplicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findingsrecorded based on appreciation of evidence on all the material issuesarising in the case.

17. It is really unfortunate that neither the Family Court nor theHigh Court kept in mind these legal principles and passed cryptic andFunreasoned orders. Such orders undoubtedly cause prejudice to the partiesand in this case, it caused prejudice to the appellant(husband) becausethe orders of the High Court and Family Court deprived him to know thereasons for fixing the permanent alimony amount of Rs.15,00,000/-payable to his wife.

G18. We cannot countenance the manner in which both the Courtspassed the order which has compelled us to remand the matter to theFamily Court for deciding the issue afresh on merits.

19. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal,set aside the impugned order of the High Court and the order of the H

Family Court insofar as it relates to fixing of Rs.15,00,000/- towardspayment of permanent alimony to the respondent(wife) by theappellant(husband) and remand the case to the Family Court to decidethe quantum of payment of permanent alimony afresh in accordancewith law keeping in view our observations made supra.

20. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained ourselvesfrom making any observation on merits of the controversy while formingan opinion to remand the case to the Family Court for the reasonsmentioned above. The Family Court would, therefore, decide the issue,uninfluenced by any of our observations, strictly in accordance with law.If necessary, the Family Court would also grant liberty to the parties toamend the pleadings and adduce evidence on the question of quantumof payment of permanent alimony.

21. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order of theHigh Court and the order of the Family Court insofar as it relates tofixation of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- are set aside with theaforesaid directions for compliance.

22. We direct the Family Court to decide the case within six monthsas an outer limit.

23. Till the disposal of the case, the appellant(husband) will continueto pay monthly maintenance amount, which was fixed by the FamilyCourt, to the respondent regularly. Needless to say, the payment ofmonthly maintenance will be subject to the final determination made bythe Family Court.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H