- (1.) Heard Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, who seeks review of the judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 passed in First Appeal No. 46 of 2004
(2.) The petitioner preferred aforementioned appeal against the judgment passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 14 of 2000 whereby the suit filed by the petitioner-appellant under Sections 22 and 23 of the Indian Divorce Act was dismissed.
(3.) Before the appeal was taken for hearing, efforts were made for conciliation but both the parties did not agree to resolve their dispute and lead conjugal rights. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that it would in the interest of both the parties if the marriage is dissolved. For better appreciation, paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment under review is quoted herein below: 5. On 26.11.2008, an application was filed by the respondent-wife under Section 41 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 claiming maintenance to the minor daughter living with her mother. In the said application, it is stated that the entire expenses of maintenance and education of the minor child is borne by the respondent who is in her custody and the appellant has never paid any amount for meeting the expenses of the daughter. On 01.12.2008, an affidavit was filed by the respondent stating inter alia that both the appellant and the respondent haw. been living separately since 01.12.1997 and there is no chance of cohabitation of the parties and as such, a judicial separation may be allowed. She has farther stated that she does not want to claim any maintenance for herself but for the welfare of the daughter, who is now about 11 yeas old, the appellant be directed to pay a lump sum amount for meeting the marriage and educational expenses of the daughter. 6. After the affidavits were filed by the parties, the appeal was finally heard on 03.12.2008. 7. Mr. P.C. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the appellant, on instruction submitted that the appellant is not in a position to pay lump sum amount for meeting the marriage and educational expenses of the daughter of the respondent. Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant could not be able to pay more than a sum of Rs. One lakh. 8. After considering the entire facts of the case and the welfare of the minor daughter living with the respondent, we are of the view that the appellant must pay a lump sum of Rs. Five Lakhs to the respondent which amount shall be spent by the respondent for meeting the marriage expenses of the daughter. 9. The appeal is, therefore disposed of by dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to the respondent within three months from today.;