MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 21 of 2002 on 4 December 2004

Arguments

Mat.App. 9/2005BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKURHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MUTUM B.K. SINGH

The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar in TS (Matrimonial) No.21/2002. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned District Judge had directed thatpermanent alimony of Rs.3 lakhs be paid to the respondent/wife on the basis of the claim made by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/husband has preferred this appeal.

On 7.12.2005 in MC No.3438/2005, it was directed that an amount of Rs.1500/- be deducted from the monthly salary of the appellant/husband and credited to the account of the respondent/wife. A direction was given to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nazira where the appellant/husband was working. It appears that this direction is being carried out and it was in fact confirmed on 11.4.2007 in the Mat. Appeal when it was directed that the maintenance as ordered on 7.12.2005 shallbe arranged to be paid by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nazira, in terms of the earlier order dated 7.12.2005.

During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant/husband had filed a misc. application being MC No.2686/2008. In this application, it is stated on affidavit that the respondent/wife is living with Tulan Deuri as his wife and that the couple has one daughter. Along with affidavit, a report from the Sivsagar Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed which confirms that the respondent/wife is living with Tulan Dauri as his wife and they have one daughter.

There is no appearance on behalf of Respondent/wife nor is there any denial of the fact that she is living with Tulan Dauri as his wife and she has a daughter from him.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the subsequent development and in view of Section 25(2) and 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act it would be in the interest of justice if the direction to pay permanent alimony to the respondent/wife is modified. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that out of Rs.3 lakhs, the respondent/wife has already received an amount of aboutRs.90,000/-. Since she is now living with Tulan Deuri as his wife for the last two years and the couple has a daughter, there is no necessity of continuing thepayment of alimony and the interest of justice would be served if this petitionis closed on the basis of the payment already made by the appellant to the respondent/wife.

Considering the material on record, we find that there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent/wife is living with Tulan Deuri as his wife and that they have a daughter. It also appears from the record that the couple has been living as husband and wife for the last two years. Apparently, the respondent/wife is now being well looked after by Tulan Deuri. Consequently, there seems to be noreason to continue with the direction that the appellant should continue to paymaintenance to the respondent/wife.

Out of the awarded amount of Rs.3 lakhs, the appellant has already paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the respondent/wife and it would not be in the interest of justice to continue any further payment by the appellant in view of the changed circumstances.

Consequently, we modify the order passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar and direct that the amount of permanent alimony due and to be paid to the respondent/wife upto 31.1.2011 be paid in full satisfaction of the decree.The appeal is disposed of.