MATA No. 81 of 2014. Case: Umakanta Barik Vs Rukmini Barik. High Court of Orissa (India)

Case NumberMATA No. 81 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: B. Sahoo, B. Mohanty and A. Tripathy, Advs. and For Respondents: S.N. Sharma, Adv.
JudgesI. Mahanty and Biswajit Mohanty, JJ.
IssueHindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 25
Judgement DateJanuary 04, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Orissa (India)


Biswajit Mohanty, J.

  1. The appellant Umakanta Barik has filed MATA No. 81 of 2014 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 21.6.2014 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur in Civil Proceeding No. 133 of 2012 so far as it directs payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the respondent wife. In the alternative, the appellant has prayed for modification of the above noted order directing payment of permanent alimony. It may be noted here that vide judgment dated 21.6.2014, the learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur has dissolved the marriage between the appellant Umakanta Barik and respondent Rukmini Barik by a decree of divorce on the ground that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty after solemnization of marriage.

  2. Thus the present MATA has been filed by the appellant challenging the order of permanent alimony only. The respondent has filed a cross objection praying for enhancement of permanent alimony to Rs. 90,00,000/-. To such cross objection, the appellant has filed an objection affidavit on 13.7.2015 and in reply to which, the respondent has filed a rejoinder on 21.9.2015. Therefore, the dispute now revolves only around the question of permanent alimony and nothing else.

  3. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submitted that the fixation of permanent alimony at Rs. 7,00,000/- is without any basis as it does not take into account the mandatory requirements of Section-25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. According to him, such quantum is to be determined taking into account the income and other properties of both the husband and wife and conduct of both the parties and other circumstances of the case. All these things have been ignored by the learned Judge, Family Court. Further, according to him, the appellant in his cross-examination clearly stated that he is getting Rs. 1000/- per night by singing and in a year he usually gets around 20 calls for singing and that the music group/orchestra party which he earlier had is no more in existence. Thus, the appellant has very meagre income. Therefore, it would not be possible for the appellant to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the respondent, namely, Rukmini Barik. Secondly, he submitted that the conduct of the respondent shows that she treated the appellant with cruelty after solemnization of marriage. Such conduct of the respondent along with other circumstances showing cruel behavior of the respondent has not been taken into account by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur while deciding the quantum of permanent alimony. Accordingly, he submitted that the quantum of permanent...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT