V.K.Vasantha Kumari Vs R Sudhakar

Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COUR OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8459-8462 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave petition (Civil) Nos.9694-9697 of

2012)

V.K. Vasantha Kumari …Appellant

Versus

R. Sudhakar …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal is filed by the appellant wife being

not satisfied with the order of the High Court of Madras in

CMA Nos.543 and 933 of 2010 and M.P. No.1 of 2010 and

M.P. No.1 of 2011 in the above mentioned CMAs.

Page 2

3. The appellant and the respondent were wife and

husband. Their marriage took place in 1986. It is an

unfortunate case where the relationship between the

appellant and respondent ran into trouble. There are three

grown up children out of the said wedlock.

4. In the year 2004, the respondent husband filed FCOP

No.571 of 2004 before the IInd Additional Family Court at

Chennai seeking divorce from the appellant on the ground of

cruelty. The said FCOP was allowed on 3.11.2009. But both

the parties carried the appeals No.544 and 932 of 2010.

Both the appeals were disposed of by a common order dated

25.1.2011. The appellate decree insofar it is relevant for our

purpose reads thus:

“2. That the Judge and Decree of Court below in respect of clause (1) i.e., the marriage dissolved by the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty be and hereby is set aside and the marriage is dissolved based on the ‘no objection’ endorsement made by petitioner in the petition.”

2

Page 3

5. The children of the parties filed Suit No.677 of 2004

before the High Court of Madras for partition of the plaint

scheduled property.

6. From the impugned order it can be seen that there are

thirteen items in the partition suit referred to above.

According to the respondent, some of these items are

already sold off. Admittedly, even according to the

respondent the family has been maintaining five vehicles.

7. The partition suit is still pending after a decade. During

the pendency of the abovementioned two proceedings,

innumerable interlocutory applications came to be filed by

various parties. It may not be necessary and profitable to

describe all the proceedings.

8. The appellant moved an interlocutory application under

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of

interim maintenance in the divorce original petition filed by

the husband. The said Interlocutory Application No.3475 of

2004 was dismissed by the Family Court on 3.2.2007.

Against the said order, the appellant herein filed a Civil

3

Page 4

Revision being CRP (PO) No.1168 of 2007 before the High

Court of Madras which was disposed of by an order dated

15.10.2008. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:

“5. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the IInd Additional Judge, Family court, Chennai to dispose of the divorce petition along with application for permanent alimony, that would be filed by the petitioner herein/wife and also the arrears of maintenance on the basis of the details that would be filed by her, within the period stipulated by the Hon’ble 1st Bench of this court, while disposing of the OSA No.179 of 2008 on 14.07.06.”

9. Pursuant to the said direction of the High Court, the

appellant herein filed another Interlocutory Application

No.409 of 2009 in the Original Petition No.571 of 2004

referred to above seeking permanent alimony of Rs.1 lakh

per month. The said interlocutory application came to be

disposed of by an order dated 3.11.2009 by the IInd

Additional Family Court, Chennai granting an amount of

Rs.24 lakhs as permanent alimony.

10. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent husband

herein carried the matter in appeal (by CMA No.543 of 2010)

to the High Court. Not satisfied with the amount granted,

4

Page 5

the appellant wife also carried the matter in appeal (by CMA

No.933 of 2010) before the High Court. Both these matters

came to be disposed of by the impugned order. The

operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:

“36. Since the appellant is having three children, in the event of vacating the existing premises, if she takes on lease at least a three bed room flat in a decent locality, she would have to spend at least Rs.25,000/- per month, apart from the other expenses. But the appellant is occupying the respondent house. Since, the appellant had submitted that her first daughter is employed, she would also be earning. The appellant, as pointed out above is having two properties at Injambakkam and sea Shore town worth about Rs.2 crores. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we are of the considered view that the appellant may require at least Rs.40,000/- per month to meet the expenses. For getting Rs.40,000/- per month as return she may have to invest Rs.40,00,000/-. The Family court awarded a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- as permanent alimony. Considering the present cost of living, we are of the considered view that the permanent alimony awarded by the IInd Additional Family Court, Chennai is on the lower side and the same should be increased to Rs.40,00,000/-. Accordingly, the permanent alimony awarded by the Family Court is increased to Rs.40,00,000/-.

37. Therefore, the fair and final order of the Family Court passed in IA No.409 of 2009 in H.M.O.P. No.571 of 2004 on the file of the IInd Additional Family Court, Chennai is modified by awarding Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lacs only) as permanent alimony to the appellant/petitioner.

38. In the result, C.M.A. No.933 of 2010 is partly allowed and C.M.A. No.543 of 2010 stands dismissed. M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 in CMA No.543 of 2010 is dismissed and M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2010 is closed. No costs.”

5

Page 6

11. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent herein

carried the matter to this Court in SLP Nos. 2506-2507 of

2012 which was dismissed by an order of this Court on

30.01.2012. Thereafter, the respondent deposited the

amount of Rs.40 lakhs and the same is recorded by this

Court vide order dated 26.11.2013. Therefore, the finding of

the High Court, while determining the question of permanent

alimony of the appellant, that the appellant requires the

amount of Rs.40,000/- per month has become final. The

issue in the instant appeal is limited. The appellant has

prayed that having regard to the fluctuating rate of interest

on fixed deposits, the amount of Rs.40 lakhs will not

constantly fetch an interest of Rs.40,000/- per month, an

appropriate order be passed to ensure that she gets a

monthly sum of Rs.40,000/- towards her maintenance.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find

justification in the demand made by the appellant. We,

6

Page 7

therefore, direct the respondent to pay another

Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs) to the appellant wife

towards permanent alimony within a period of thirty days

from today.

14. The appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order

as to costs.

………………………….J. (J. Chelameswar)

.……………………..….J. (A.K. Sikri) New Delhi; September 04, 2014

7

Page 8

IN THE SUPREME COUR OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8459-8462 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave petition (Civil) Nos.9694-9697 of

2012)

V.K. Vasantha Kumari …Appellant

Versus

R. Sudhakar …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

After the order is pronounced, a prayer is made by Mr. Ankur Saigal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent husband that the respondent be given a period of two months to comply with the direction given today. We, therefore, direct the husband to make the payment within a period of 8 weeks from today instead of 30 days, as directed in the judgment.

………………………….J. (J. Chelameswar)

.……………………..….J. (A.K. Sikri)

8

Page 9

New Delhi; September 04, 2014

9