DANIEL ANAND Vs. SMT. G.N. SUJATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the I-Additional Prl. Family Court, Mysuru ('Family Court' for short), in M.C. No. 75 of 2014 directing the appellant herein to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent.

(2.) Facts in brief are : The appellant and the respondent got married to each other as per Christian Customary Rights on 28-12-2016 at Bethel Brothern Church, Krishnamurthypuram, Mysuru. The couple had a female child by name Grace Jacintha in the wedlock, who is now aged about 8 years. Due to the matrimonial disharmony between the couple, the appellant herein filed petition under Section 10(l)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (the 'Act' for short) before the Family Court. So also, the respondent filed C. Misc. No. 437 of 2014 against the appellant claiming maintenance. The Court below clubbed both the petitions and passed common judgment and order on 1-2-2017. The petition filed by the appellant for divorce was allowed and the C. Misc. No. 437 of 2014 filed by the respondent for maintenance was dismissed. However, while granting the decree of divorce, the Court below directed the appellant herein to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lakhs. The said portion of the order directing the appellant to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent is challenged herein.

(3.) The learned Counsel Smt. S. Susheela appearing for the appellant challenged the impugned order, quantifying the permanent alimony, on two grounds. Firstly, Section 37 of the Act do not entitle the wife to claim for permanent alimony, where the husband has filed the petition for divorce. Placing reliance on Section 37 of the Act, the learned Counsel vehemently argued that the Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding the permanent alimony to the wife exercising the power under Section 37 of the Act. Secondly, it was contended that the respondent is capable of earning, being a beautician whereas the appellant is only a taxi driver not having the assured income. In addition to that, the appellant has to take care of his mother and child who are dependent on him. In the absence of any material placed on record by the respondent, to establish the factum of income of the appellant, permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lakhs awarded by the Court below is wholly unsustainable. Thus, the learned Counsel sought for setting aside the order impugned, awarding permanent alimony, allowing the appeal.