Divya Ramesh vs N.S.Kiran/Sheshadri K Nittur

After the marriage, the petitioner gave up her

employment and joined the respondent at New Jersey

on 30.12.2003. At that time, she was still pursuing her

last year LLB course. She came back to India for

attending her exams and again joined the respondent at

New Jersey. There were disturbances in the marriage.

Therefore, during their visit to India, the parties

underwent counseling with Dr.Ahalya Raghuram at

NIMHANS, Bangalore. During her stay in USA, the

petitioner pursued her Para Legal Studies and for some 5

time worked as Legal Assistant. Differences amongst

the couple reached peak and ultimately, the petitioner

returned to India on 24.02.2009.

5. Thereafter, petitioner filed M.C.No.729/09

before the trial Court for dissolution of marriage. She

also filed applications under Sections 25 and 26 of the

Hindu Marriage Act claiming permanent alimony of

Rs.50.00 lakhs and a two bed room residential

accommodation in Basavanagudi for stay of herself and

her daughter and Rs.50.00 lakhs for the maintenance of

her child. The trial Court dismissed the said petition

and awarded only Rs.10.00 lakhs towards the

maintenance of the daughter.

6. Then the petitioner took up the matter before

this Court in the above appeal. This Court by

Judgment dated 12.11.2013 allowed the appeal holding

that the trial Court has not considered each and every

act of cruelty alleged independently and even the 6

maintenance awarded is inadequate and remanded the

matter for fresh consideration.

7. The petitioner challenged the said judgment

before the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A.No.14164/15. The

Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 18.10.2016

set-aside the order of this Court and remanded the

matter to this Court to decide the entitlement of the

appellant for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act

on merits and the question of alimony, if divorce is to

be granted. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that

this Court will decide the quantum of maintenance

that would be appropriate for the daughter.

8. The petitioner in her petition, alleged the

following acts of cruelty:

(1) Soon after the marriage, the respondent and his

parents abused her and her parents expressing

their dissatisfaction that the performance of the

marriage was not befitting their stature and 7

therefore, the respondent is entitled to treat the

petitioner as maid servant at home;

(2) The respondent was abusing her and her

parents in foul language;

(3) For all minor things, the respondent was

pressurizing her to apologize and pressurized

her to resign her employment;

(4) During their stay in America the respondent

used to be always angry at her for no reasons;

(5) He was discriminating between his parents and

her parents and relatives in showing the

courtesies;

(6) The respondent was not allowed to visit her

parents house and whenever she had to visit,

that would have been only after an issue;

(7) The respondent did not care for the maintenance

of herself and her child;

(8) He was not allowing her to draw money from her

Savings Bank Account;

8

(9) He forced her to issue authorization letter in

favour of his father for operating her bank

account;

(10) During her pregnancy, he did not speak to her

and he was not accompanying her to consult the

Doctor;

(11) He did not arrange for the visit of her parents to

New Jersey for her prenatal and postnatal care

and only after the intervention of his sister, he

arranged the VISA for them but, still did not

arrange for their air fare;

(12) He used to come home late and was not

attending to baby's needs etc;

(13) He was not talking to the petitioner's parents

during their stay of 5 months in New Jersey;

(14) He did not arrange for the baby's care and did

not share the baby's day care expenses;

(15) He cancelled the petitioner's add-on-card; 9

(16) She developed High Blood Pressure during

pregnancy due to the ill treatment of the

respondent and ultimately, not being able to

withstand the cruelty, when she sought to

return to India, he imposed a condition that only

on she facilitating him for a decree for divorce by

mutual consent in New Jersey Court, she will be

allowed to go to India;

(17) Despite she intimating him of her departure

from New Jersey to India, he filed a police

complaint in USA alleging that she has abducted

the child which resulted in Interpol people

interrupting her journey in Frankfurt Airport;

(15) To defame her, he spread rumors among

friends and relatives that she is in search by the

Interpol as child abductor and will be sent to jail

soon.

10

9. The respondent contested the petition denying

all the allegations and as against that he contended that

the petitioner was arrogant towards his parents and did

not discharge the duty of a wife and mother and he took

all care of her. Before the trial Court, the petitioner got

herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to

P.12. The respondent got examined himself as RW1 and

got marked Ex.R.1 to R.39.

10. The trial Court after hearing both the

parties, dismissed the petition for divorce holding that

(a) except the oral evidence of the petitioner, she

did not produce any material to show that she

developed High Blood Pressure due to the alleged

harassment of the respondent and she has not filed any

police complaint against the respondent and his parents

in respect of alleged demand for gifts and humiliation;

(b) that the petitioner has not accounted each

single incident of cruelty specifically and non-payment 11

of day care expenses for the child does not amount to

cruelty as the petitioner was also employed;

(c) that if the respondent intended to abuse her

economically, he would not have paid air fare for the

petitioner's travel for the purpose of her law

examinations and the fees for her Para Legal course

training and he would not have allowed her to work;

(d) that the husband has already obtained a

decree in the New Jersey Court and petitioner admits

the service of notice in that case and does not claim that

the said decree is obtained by fraud. Therefore, in view

of that decree, she is again not entitled for a decree of

divorce.

11. The petitioner herself argued the matter

before this Court reiterating the grounds of appeal. In

support of her arguments, she relied upon the following

judgments:

(1) Y.NARASIMHA RAO & ORS. Vs Y.VENKATA LAKSHMI & ANR. ((1991)3 SCC 451)(1991(2) SCR 821) 12

(2) V.BHAGAT vs MRS. D.BHAGAT (AIR 1994 SC

710)

Regarding grant of alimony, she relied upon the

following judgments:

(1) SUNITHA KACHWAHA & ORS. VS ANIL KACHWAHA (AIR 2015 SC 554)

(2) VINNY PARMVIR PARMAR vs PARMVIR PARMAR (AIR 2011 SCC 2748)

12. The respondents counsel supporting the findings

of the trial Court argued that there is already a decree of

the foreign Court, therefore, the trial Court is justified in

rejecting the petition. He further argued that the

conduct of the petitioner shows that the fight was

always over financial matters and that shows that the

petitioner always wanted only money instead of joining

the husband. He further argued that the cruelty alleged

are only the normal wear and tear of the family life and

the petitioner failed to bring her case within the purview

of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.

13

13. In support of his contention, he relied upon

the following judgments:

(1)GURBUX SINGH vs HARMINDER KAUR ((2010)14 SCC 301)

(2) K.SRINIVAS RAO vs D A DEEPA ((2013)5 SCC 226)

(3) SUMAN KAPUR vs SUDHIR KAPUR ((2009)1 SCC

422)

(5) RAMCHANDER vs ANANTA ((2015)11 SCC 539)

(5) SAMAR GHOSH vs JAYA GHOSH ((2007)4 SCC 511)

14. To find out whether there is cruelty and

whether the appreciation of the evidence by the trial

Court is sustainable or not, the scope and ambit of the

cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act has to be

considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

Judgment in SAMAR GHOSH's case (supra) has held

that it is impossible to give the definition of mental

cruelty having regard to the complex nature of the

human behaviour and it depends upon the up-bringing

level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural

background, financial position, social status, 14

customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and

their value system. It is further held that there

cannot be any straight jacket formula or fixed

parameters for determining mental cruelty in

matrimonial matters and that has to be seen in the

context of the time and the aforesaid other relevant

factors and peculiar facts and circumstances of each

case. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court listed the

following as some instances of cruelty as illustrations

and though not exhaustive as under:

(i) On consideration of the complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make it possible for the parties to live with each other, could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On a comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, if it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty; but frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect 15

may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish,

disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other for a long time, may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of one spouse actually affecting the physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness, causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness which cause unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset, but may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

16

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes

vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such as act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie.

By refusing to sever that tie the law in such cased does not serve the sanctity 17

of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situation, it may lead to mental cruelty.

15. Though the parties have relied upon several

decisions, in the opinion of this Court, the above

Judgment had laid the guidelines very elaborately on

the point of 'cruelty'. As already pointed out, it is an

undisputed fact that the petitioner at an early age was a

sports celebrity and was employed. Her first allegation

is that she was forced to resign and the respondent and

her father-in-law took over her financial affairs and was

forced to execute an authorization letter in favour of the

father of the respondent to operate her account.

16. RW1 in his cross examination at page 11

paragraph 2 admits that the petitioner was a 3rd rank

National Badminton Champion and the holder of

Ekalaya award. He admits that she traveled to several

countries representing India in the Badminton matches.

This shows her sound social, economical and 18

professional family background. He admits that the

petitioner had nobody except him in New Jersey when

she joined him there. At page 10 paragraph 2 of his

cross-examination he states that there was no mutual

trust between him and the petitioner in the financial

matters. Therefore, they were subjected to counseling.

17. At page 20 paragraph 3 of his cross

examination, the respondent admits that after marriage

the petitioner executed General Power of Attorney in

favour of his father before she left for America to look

after her bank affairs. He admits that his father has

collected the proceeds of her LIC policy. He admits that

he had not paid the premium of those policies. Though,

it is contended that the father of the respondent drew

the amount from the accounts of the petitioner and

collected her policy amount to acquire a BDA site under

sports quota in the name of the petitioner, admittedly,

no site is acquired in her name in the sports quota.

The respondent has not produced any material to show 19

that the amount so collected by the father of the

respondent is refunded to the petitioner.

18. Though it is contended that the petitioner

herself executed the power of attorney/authorization

letter to enable the father-in-law to apply for the site

etc., the respondent does not examine his father before

the Court. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in the cross

examination of the petitioner to show that she has

voluntarily executed those documents. If the execution

of the authority letter was for the purpose of attending

the transactions for acquiring the BDA site or for any

other convenience, she could have as well executed

such authority letter in favour of her parents. It is not

the case of the respondent that he or his father asked

the petitioner to execute such authorization

letter/power of attorney in favour of her father.

19. When suggested in his cross examination,

that his father compelled her to sign the SBI mandate 20

form, RW1 pleads ignorance. It is hard to believe that

he does not know what transpired between his wife and

his father. He does not choose to examine his father

though all along it is his case that that the petitioner

was arrogant, disrespectful and indifferent towards his

parents.

20. Without appreciating these facts and the

circumstances, the trial Court says that the petitioner's

case of cruelty in connection with demand for money

has to be disbelieved because she has not filed the

complaint against the husband and the parents-in-law

which is erroneous.

21. It is the case of the petitioner that to make her

helpless in an alien country, to pressurize her for a

consent divorce as it would work out cheaper to the

respondent to get such a remedy, he cancelled the add-

on card to deprive her of her basic necessities. RW1

admits that after a reconciliation meeting in his sister's 21

house, he agreed to give the petitioner 400 dollars per

month for her expenses. That shows, he had stopped

giving her any money.

22. RW1 at page 15 of his cross examination

states that he cancelled the add-on card because he lost

his card. He had not adduced any evidence to show

that he had lost his credit card therefore, he cancelled

the add-on card. He admits that the petitioner felt bad

when her credit card was cancelled. If at all, he had

lost his credit card, he should have acquired another

credit card and on acquiring such credit card, he should

have secured an add-on card for the petitioner.

Contrary to that, the respondent at his cross

examination at page 15 admits that he did not make

any attempt to renew the add-on card of the petitioner

or secure a new credit card for her.

22

23. Ex.P.4 is admittedly the mail sent by the

respondent to the petitioner. In Ex.P.4, his statement

regarding cancellation of the add-on card is as follows:

"After all these incidents I came to the realization of the criminal mentality of you and your father which is why I cancelled the credit card. But now I think that the decision I made was the correct decision".

The above statement clearly shows that the respondent

has deliberately cancelled the add-on card of the

petitioner and now comes up with a false plea before

this Court that he had lost his credit card, therefore the

add-on card had to be cancelled. That shows that the

respondent is capable of taking false pleas knowing

them to be false and deposes to the falsehood before the

Court though he is an engineer himself and aware of the

consequence of giving false evidence. If he can do that

with the Court, one can imagine how would be his

conduct with a helpless woman with a child in an alien

country to bring her to his terms.

23

24. His other contention is that the wife was

crazy and always shopping and merry making.

Therefore, leaving the child at a very tender age, she

joined the employment.

25. Firstly, the above discussed evidence shows

that respondent deprived the wife and daughter of

required support. Secondly, it is the case of the

petitioner that the respondent thought of acquiring a

house in Amercia and therefore, planned that both of

them could work and earn money. That is why, he put

her for the paralegal course study. The respondent in

his cross-examination at page 11-12 admits to the said

fact in the following manner:

"ªÁ¢ PÀÆqÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃj ¸ÀA¥Á¢¸À®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÀ ¥ÀPÀëz° À è £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀgÀªiÀ Á£À¢AzÀ vÁªÀÅ CªÉÄÃjPÁzÀ°è ªÀÄ£É CxÀªÁ D¹Û Rjâ¸À®Ä ¸ÀÄ®¨sÀªA É zÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ¨sÁ«¹zÉݪA É §ÄzÀÄ ¤d".

26. The respondent in his cross-examination at

page 13 admits that the petitioner was attending to her

employment leaving the child in the nearest day care 24

centre and she was remitting the fee of the said day care

centre. He even goes to the extent of saying that he

does not know how much amount she was paying. He

admits that he had not made any other arrangement to

take care of the child during the absence of the

petitioner to attend to her work. He himself admits that

for her job in Nelson, Fromer & Crocco Law Firm, the

petitioner was getting only 30 dollars per day.

27. RW1 admits that after she coming over to US

till she joined the Jakie Biddle Attorney Company, she

was not having any income of her own and she was

depending upon him. He admits that to patch up the

differences, there was a meeting in the house of his

sister and there it was decided to bear 400 dollars per

month for her personal expenses. RW1 in his cross

examination at page 30 admits that after the marriage,

while flying to USA, he had not given her any money.

When it was suggested to him that her monthly salary

was only Rs.8000/- and after defraying her personal 25

expenses, she was getting only Rs.2000/- as surplus

money, he pleads his ignorance for that.

28. RW1 in his cross examination says that there

was a breakdown of marriage between him and the

petitioner even before the petitioner returned to India.

He claims that he intended to seek the dissolution

of the marriage in the American Courts and he had

no intention to get the dissolution of marriage by

mutual consent. He clearly says that by that time he

had already consulted one American lawyer and one

Indian lawyer and had taken their consent. He admits

that his Advocates had advised him that it is easy to

get the divorce by mutual consent and if he alone files

the petition for divorce and if the wife resists, then he

has to spend lot of money. He admits that since their

marriage was only 5 years old, if the divorce takes place

as per the American law, at the most he had to pay

only 2½ years maintenance. Though he denies that

for that benefit he was eager to take the divorce in 26

American Court. This conduct of the husband amply

shows that he maneuvered to take an exparte divorce in

American Court.

29. RW1 in his evidence has clearly admitted

that after the petitioner filing the present petition in

India, she informed him about the same over the mail

and despite that, he filed another petition before the

Court in New Jersey for dissolution. Ex.P.3 is

admittedly the mail sent by the respondent on

04.02.2009 in which the respondent has stated that he

has consulted the lawyers and as per the opinion of the

New Jersey lawyer, taking divorce by mutual consent in

New Jersey takes 3-4 months time and since 5 years

time is short-lived marriage he has to give 2 years or

maximum 2½ years alimony and in that connection, he

consulted his friend Deepak also. It is the contention of

the petitioner that the said Deepak was also a wife

tormentor and he was booked in a criminal case for

physical violence against his wife. RW1 in his cross 27

examination has admitted that after the said Deepak

was released from the police custody, the respondent

brought him to his house and gave him shelter in his

house.

30. The respondent's own evidence shows that

he was aware of the departure of his wife with child to

Bangalore and still he filed a complaint alleging that his

wife had abducted the child. It goes to show that even

after the knowledge of the filing of the present petition,

he filed a divorce petition which is at Ex.P.1 before the

New Jersey Court alleging that the wife had abducted

the child and left the country. Ex.P.1 shows that he has

made a false declaration to the effect that the matter in

controversy is not the subject of any pending matter in

any Court or of any pending arbitration proceeding

though he was aware that the pendency of present

petition.

28

31. Having regard to all these facts, there is no

reason to disbelieve the case of the petitioner that when

she was alone with her tender aged daughter without

any support in an alien country, the respondent who

was supposed to be the only supporter for them to reap

the benefits of a divorce at a cheaper cost in a foreign

country, subjected her to financial distress and

helplessness. That goes to show that he tried to held

her captive to achieve such divorce. The above said

facts and circumstances go to show that the petitioner's

apprehension that continuing with the respondent in

the matrimonial home was not safe to her is reasonable

one.

32. It is also to be noted that in Ex.P.1 the divorce

petition filed before the New Jersey Court wherein the

respondent has declared that there has been no

previous proceeding between him and the respondent

respecting the marriage or its dissolution, which is

again a false declaration. He has boldly stated in his 29

declaration that he is aware that if any of the

statements made are willfully false, he is subject to

punishment. Ex.P.2 - the mail sent by the petitioner to

the respondent on 26.03.2009 which is admitted by

RW1 shows that the respondent was aware of the

pendency of the above said matrimonial proceedings

before the Family Court at Bangalore. Despite that, on

4.8.2009 as found in Ex.P.1, has made such false

declaration.

33. Ex.R.39 is the judgment of divorce passed by

the New Jersey Court on 21.8.2010 in favour of the

respondent. Clause 3 of the said judgment reads as

follows:

"That the order to Show Cause under Docket No.FA-13-1285-09 on April 8, 2009 remains in effect. Once the Courts in India have ruled on the Defendant's request for a divorce in India, the plaintiff may return to this Court for further relief, if appropriate".

That itself goes to show that the judgment under

Ex.R.39 is subject to the result of the Judgment in this 30

case. Still the respondent claims that since already

there is a divorce of the foreign Court, the petition is not

maintainable and trial Court accepts the said

contention.

34. A reading of Section 13 CPC shows that a

foreign Judgment shall be conclusive subject to the

exceptions mentioned hereunder:

(a)......

(b)......

(c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of (India) in cases in which such law in applicable;

(d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice.

In this case there is no dispute that when the

notice of the divorce petition filed by the respondent in

New Jersey Court the petitioner sent a communication

to the said Court saying that she is not going to

participate in those proceedings as she has filed the

above petition in this case. She did not contest the said 31

matter. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Y.NARASIMHA RAO

& ORS. Vs Y.VENKATA LAKSHMI & ORS. ((1991)3

SCC 451) has laid down the following principles to

recognize the foreign matrimonial judgment in this

country as follows:

"Para 20: From the aforesaid discussion, the following rule can be deduced for recognisizing a foreign matrimonial judgment in this Country. The Jursidiction assumed by the Foreign Court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows:

(i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domicile or habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in matrimonial law under which the parties are married;

(ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married;

(iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the 32

provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties".

As discussed above, the petitioner has not contested

the divorce petition of the respondent in the foreign

Court and he has obtained the said divorce decree by

suppressing the fact of pendency of the wife's petition

for divorce and giving a false declaration that no such

case is pending in any Court. Therefore, the said

Judgment cannot be recognized. Therefore, the trial

Court committed error in dismissing the petition on the

ground that the husband has already obtained a divorce

decree from the New Jersey Court.

35. The respondent himself claims that he has

filed a child abduction complaint against the petitioner

thereby putting her to the threat of being arrested if she

lands in America. All the above facts go to show that

the respondent to bring her to his terms for divorce in

New Jersey Court which confers him financial

advantage deprived her of her sustenance by canceling 33

her add-on card and not providing the maintenance for

herself and her child in the foreign country. Further,

even on petitioner managing to return to India,

implicated her in a criminal case and exparte divorce

case. Once he divorces her, her dependent VISA loses

validity and she becomes unlawful immigrant which

would have entailed serving consequences.

36. The respondent in his written statement at

para 10 gives the list of amount spent on the gifts given

to the wife and the child, amount spent on their

honeymoon etc. In his affidavit at paragraph 24 filed in

lieu of his chief-examination, he says that he has

already invested over 17 lakhs towards the petitioner

and gives the break-up of the said investment which

includes again the sarees purchased for the wife,

honeymoon trip and gifts made, jewelleries purchased

for his wife and the child, when treating the wife as an

investment, that itself is in a very bad taste let alone 34

other contents of the affidavit and that amounts to

cruelty.

37. Having regard to the up-bringing, level of

sensitivity, educational, family and cultural

background, financial position and social status of the

petitioner, such conduct amounts to cruelty. That

cannot be called as mere abusing, shouting or nagging

or a normal wear and tear of a marital life. When he

tried to snatch means of sustenance of the petitioner,

that amounts to depriving her of her right to life which

amounts to violation of human rights. Therefore, this

Court finds that the approach of the trial Court in

appreciating the evidence with reference to Section

13(1)(ia) of the Act is incorrect.

38. Insofar as the alimony is concerned,

indisputably the petitioner and her daughter have no

source of their own income. The Trial Court says that

the petitioner is a law graduate and was employed, she 35

is capable of earning, therefore rejects maintenance.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in SUNITA KACHWAHA & ORS.

vs ANIL KACHWAHA (2015(3) SCC Criminal 589) in a

similar case has held as follows:

"Merely because the appellant/wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance"

(emphasis supplied).

39. Having regard to that, the said approach of

the trial court in rejecting the alimony to the wife is

totally unsustainable.

40. RW1 in his cross examination at page 16

paragraph 2 admits that his annual income in the year

2010 was USD 1,12,000/- which comes to

Rs.76,16,000/-. Further, he admits in his own cross

examination that he owns 50x80' BDA site in

Vishveshwaraiah Layout. He admits that their house is 36

renovated. He admits that the petitioner is suffering

from High Blood Pressure.

41. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and

judgment in SUNITA KACHWAHA's case he is

supposed to give maintenance befitting his lifestyle or

stature. At the time of giving evidence RW1 was 37

years of age. It is not his case that he is facing

problems in his career.

42. In a similar question which was under

consideration in VINNY PARMAVIR PARMAR vs

PARMAVIR PARMAR (AIR 2011 SC 2748), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court awarded monthly maintenance of

Rs.40,000/- to the wife lifelong. In the alternate, the

husband was directed to deposit Rs.40,00,000/- in the

name of the wife as final settlement. In fact, in the said

case the husband had remarried with a child and had

parents also and had to look after all of them. 37

43. Having regard to these facts and the Judgment in

VINNY PARMAVIR PARMAR's case referred to supra,

rejection of alimony to the wife and the grant of alimony of

Rs.10.00 lakhs in lumpsum to the daughter, is wholly

unjust and unsustainable in law. The daughter has to be

educated and married. Wife has no source of income of her

own. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances

and the Judgment in Vinni Parmvir Parmar's case, it

is just and appropriate to award permanent alimony of

Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) to the

petitioner and Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only)

towards maintenance to her daughter Tara Nittur.

Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act speakes of alimony in

terms of "such sum". Therefore, the claim of the

petitioner in terms of a building for her accommodation

cannot be considered.

44. In the result the appeal is partly allowed with

costs. The Judgment and decree of the trial Court is

hereby set-aside. The petition of the appellant under

Section 13(1)(i)(a) of The Hindu Marriage Act is hereby 38

allowed. The marriage of the appellant/petitioner and

the respondent dated 14.11.2003 is hereby dissolved.

The respondent is directed to pay permanent alimony @

Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner and maintenance of

Rs.50,00,000/- to the daughter Tara Nittur. The said

amount shall be deposited before this Court within six

weeks from the date of this order failing which there

shall be charge on the immovable properties of the

respondent to secure the said amount.

On depositing the amount as aforesaid the

maintenance awarded to the child Tara Nittur, shall be

kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till she

attains majority with liberty to the petitioner to draw the

interest accrued on the said amount periodically.

Draw decree accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Brn