JALENDRA PADHIARYversusPRAGATI CHHOTRAY

490                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    3 S.C.R. 490              [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A                         JALENDRA PADHIARY
                                       v.
                           PRAGATI CHHOTRAY
                        (Civil Appeal No. 3876 of 2018)
B                               APRIL 17, 2018
        [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
            Judgment/Order – Reasoned Order – Family Court passed a
      decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of appellant-husband
      and respondent-wife – The Court also directed the appellant-
C
      husband to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- and litigation
      expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-wife – Aggrieved with
      the part of order which directed appellant to pay permanent alimony,
      appellant filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court,
      which was dismissed – Whether the Division Bench of the High
D     Court was justified in dismissing the appellant’s appeal in limine
      and thereby upholding the order of the Family Court insofar as it
      related to awarding permanent alimony to the respondent-wife –
      Held: No – On perusal of the order of the Family Court and the
      High Court, it would show that both Courts failed to apply their
      judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy insofar as award
E
      of permanent alimony to the respondent-wife is concerned – Both
      the Courts did not even mention the factual narration of the case
      set up by the parties on the question of award of permanent alimony
      and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning
      and categorical findings on the material issues such as, financial
F     earning capacity of wife, a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way
      of permanent alimony to the wife was given – Direction wholly
      unsustainable in law – Neither the Family Court nor the High Court
      considered the legal principles applicable to the issues involved
      and passed cryptic and unreasoned orders.
G           Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. Mere perusal of the order of the Family Court
      and the High Court would go to show that both the Courts failed
      to apply their judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy
      insofar as award of permanent alimony to the respondent(wife) is
H
                                     490
       JALENDRA PADHIARY v. PRAGATI CHHOTRAY                             491


concerned. Both the Courts did not even mention the factual              A
narration of the case set up by the parties on the question of
award of permanent alimony and without there being any
discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on
the material issues such as, financial earning capacity of husband
to pay the alimony and also the financial earning capacity of wife,
                                                                         B
a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony to
the wife was given. Such direction is wholly unsustainable in law.
[Para 15] [494-B-D]
      2. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts
the need to pass reasoned order in every case, which must contain
the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis,   C
the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the
parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and
the reasons in support of the findings recorded based on
appreciation of evidence on all the material issues arising in the
case. [Para 16] [494-E]                                                  D
      3. Neither the Family Court nor the High Court kept in
mind these legal principles and passed cryptic and unreasoned
orders. Such orders undoubtedly cause prejudice to the parties
and in this case, it caused prejudice to the appellant(husband)
because the orders of the High Court and Family Court deprived           E
him to know the reasons for fixing the permanent alimony amount
of Rs.15,00,000/- payable to his wife. [Para 17] [494-F]
     4. The manner in which both the Courts passed the order
cannot be countenanced and thus the matter is remanded to the
Family Court to decide the quantum of payment of permanent               F
alimony afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the
observations made supra. [Paras 18, 19] [494-G; 495-A]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3876
of 2018.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2014 of the High Court     G
of Orissa at Cuttack in MATA No. 113 of 2014.
      Kumar Gaurav, B. N. Dubey, Robin Khokhar, Advs. for the
Appellant.
      Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. for the Respondent.
                                                                         H
492             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A           ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
             2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated
      03.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in M.A.T.A.
      No.113 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
      the appeal filed by the appellant herein in limine at the stage of admission,
B     in consequence, upheld the order dated 17.09.2014 passed by the Family
      Court, Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No.24 of 2011.
             3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and it would be
      clear from the facts stated hereinbelow.
            4. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondent is the
C     defendant in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises. The dispute is
      between the husband and wife and it relates to award of permanent
      alimony payable to wife.
              5. The appellant-husband filed a petition against the respondent-
      wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter
D     referred to as “the Act”) before the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar
      seeking decree for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion
      and cruelty. The respondent filed her written statement and denied the
      material averments of the appellant’s claim. On the basis of the pleadings
      and the evidence adduced by the parties, the Family Judge, by order
E     dated 17.09.2014, allowed the petition and passed a decree of divorce
      by dissolving the marriage. The Family Judge also directed the
      appellant(husband) to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- and
      litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent(wife).
             6. The appellant(husband), felt aggrieved by that part of the order
F     of the Family Court by which the appellant was directed to pay permanent
      alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent(wife), filed appeal before
      the Division Bench of the High Court. By judgment/decree dated
      03.11.2014, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant’s
      appeal and affirmed the order of the Family Court.
             7. Against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, the
G
      appellant(husband) has filed this appeal by way of special leave in this
      Court.
             8. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,
      is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing
      the appellant’s appeal in limine and thereby upholding the order of the
H
          JALENDRA PADHIARY v. PRAGATI CHHOTRAY                              493
                [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

Family Judge insofar as it related to awarding permanent alimony of          A
Rs.15,00,000/- to the wife(respondent).
     9. Heard Mr. Kumar Gaurav, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, learned counsel for the respondent.
       10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, set       B
aside the impugned order as also the order of the Family Court to the
extent it fixes the award of permanent alimony and remand the case to
the Family Court for deciding the question of grant of permanent alimony
payable to wife afresh on merits in accordance with law.
      11. The operative portion of the order of the Family Court reads       C
as under:
         “The petition of the petitioner is allowed on contest in favour
         of the petitioner. A decree of divorce is passed and the
         marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is
         hereby declared dissolved with effect from the date of              D
         decree. The petitioner is directed to pay permanent alimony
         of Rs.15,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to
         the respondent.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
                                                                             E
         12. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court reads as
under:
         “After looking into the allegations made and pleadings taken
         by the parties, as recorded in the impugned judgment, which
         during the course of argument could not be snipped, we do
                                                                             F
         not find any reason to interfere with the amount of
         Rs.15,00,000/- awarded as permanent alimony to the wife
         by the learned Judge, Family Court. In the present time,
         the said amount is wholly insufficient for the wife to maintain
         her entire life.
              Since we do not find any merit in the appeal, we dismiss       G
         the same in limine at the very stage of admission.”
      13. The only question involved in the appeal before the High Court,
which was carried to this Court in this appeal by the appellant (husband),
was whether the award of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- by the
                                                                             H
494             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A     Family Court to the respondent(wife) was legally and factually
      sustainable.
            14. Insofar as the grant of decree of divorce in favour of the
      husband is concerned, it was not challenged by the respondent (wife) in
      appeal before the High Court and hence it attained finality.
B            15. In our view, mere perusal of the order of the Family Court
      and the High Court quoted supra, would go to show that both the Courts
      failed to apply their judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy
      insofar as award of permanent alimony to the respondent(wife) is
      concerned. Both the Courts did not even mention the factual narration
C     of the case set up by the parties on the question of award of permanent
      alimony and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning
      and categorical findings on the material issues such as, financial earning
      capacity of husband to pay the alimony and also the financial earning
      capacity of wife, a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way of permanent
      alimony to the wife was given. In our opinion, such direction is wholly
D     unsustainable in law.
             16. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts the
      need to pass reasoned order in every case, which must contain the
      narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues
      arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles
E     applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings
      recorded based on appreciation of evidence on all the material issues
      arising in the case.
             17. It is really unfortunate that neither the Family Court nor the
      High Court kept in mind these legal principles and passed cryptic and
F     unreasoned orders. Such orders undoubtedly cause prejudice to the parties
      and in this case, it caused prejudice to the appellant(husband) because
      the orders of the High Court and Family Court deprived him to know the
      reasons for fixing the permanent alimony amount of Rs.15,00,000/-
      payable to his wife.
G           18. We cannot countenance the manner in which both the Courts
      passed the order which has compelled us to remand the matter to the
      Family Court for deciding the issue afresh on merits.
             19. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal,
      set aside the impugned order of the High Court and the order of the
H
        JALENDRA PADHIARY v. PRAGATI CHHOTRAY                                    495
              [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

Family Court insofar as it relates to fixing of Rs.15,00,000/- towards           A
payment of permanent alimony to the respondent(wife) by the
appellant(husband) and remand the case to the Family Court to decide
the quantum of payment of permanent alimony afresh in accordance
with law keeping in view our observations made supra.
       20. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained ourselves           B
from making any observation on merits of the controversy while forming
an opinion to remand the case to the Family Court for the reasons
mentioned above. The Family Court would, therefore, decide the issue,
uninfluenced by any of our observations, strictly in accordance with law.
If necessary, the Family Court would also grant liberty to the parties to
amend the pleadings and adduce evidence on the question of quantum               C
of payment of permanent alimony.
       21. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order of the
High Court and the order of the Family Court insofar as it relates to
fixation of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- are set aside with the
aforesaid directions for compliance.                                             D

       22. We direct the Family Court to decide the case within six months
as an outer limit.
      23. Till the disposal of the case, the appellant(husband) will continue
to pay monthly maintenance amount, which was fixed by the Family                 E
Court, to the respondent regularly. Needless to say, the payment of
monthly maintenance will be subject to the final determination made by
the Family Court.


Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeal allowed.   F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H