SUVARNALATAversusMOHAN ANANDRAO DESHMUKH & ANR.

                        [2010] 4 S.C.R. 68


A                        SUVARNALATA
                                v.
            MOHAN ANANDRAO DESHMUKH & ANR.
                  (Civil No. 2994 of 2010)

                          APRIL 5, 2010
B
        [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- ss. 13(1)(iii) and 25- Petition
  for divorce by husband - Alleging mental disorder of wife -
c Decree of divorce by Family Court - The order affirmed by
  High Court - On appeal, wife not challenging decree of
  divorce, but findings relating to mental disorder - Also
  claiming lump sum amount of Rs. 75 lakhs towards
  permanent alimony - Held: Findings relating to alleged
0 mental disorder. not acceptable - Claim for permanent
  alimony justified - Matter remitted to Family Court to
  ascertain the estimated income of husband and thereafter to
  send the same to Supreme Court for final order.

       Respondent-husband filed petition for divorce in
E Family Court on the ground that appellant-wife was a
  patient of Schizophrenia. Family Court passed decree of
  divorce. The order was affirmed by High Court. Review
  petition against the same was dismissed.

F      In appeal to this court, notice was issued only on the
  question of the findings relating to the mental disorder
  of the appellant and on the question of payment of lump-
  sum amount by the husband, as the appellant stated that
  she did not wish to challenge the final decree of divorce.
G Appellant-wife prayed for Rs. 75 lakhs as a lump sum
  amount as permanent alimony.

      Adjourning the matter, and in the meanwhile remitting
  the matter to Family Court for ascertaining the estimated
  income of respondent, the Court
H                             68
 SUVARNALATA v. MOHAN ANANDRAO DESHMUKH                  69
                  & ANR.
     HELD: 1. The findings regarding the appellant's A
alleged mental disorder/schizophrenia is not acceptable
and could not be agreed to and such findings cannot be
sustained and have been rightly rejected by the Judge of
the Family Court. The Court is inclined to accept the
subsequent finding arrived at by the same Judge of the B
Family Court, in the custody proceedings who had
decreed the suit of respondent No.1 for divorce. [Para 10]
[69-C-D]
     2.1. The prayer for permanent alimony u/s. 25 of the C
Hindu Marriage Act is not only maintainable but also
justified in the facts a-nd circumstances of the instant
case. The list of assets owned by respondent No.1, set
out as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit, indicates that
respondent No.1 is sufficiently well-off to provide for a
                                                             0
suitable lump sum amount towards permanent alimony
as maintenance to the appellant and he.r daughter, .
though may not be to the extent as claimed by the
appellant. [Para 11] [73-E-H]
     2.2. Since it is not possible for this Court, on the      E
general information supplied, to arrive at the estimated
income of respondent No.1, it is, therefore, ordered that
the appeal be kept pending for a period of three months
in this Court and the records be remitted to the Judge,
Family Court to take additional evidence relating to the       F
estimated income of respondent No.1, keeping in mind
the list of assets annexed by the appellant to her Rejoinder
Affidavit and to send back the same to this Court for final
disposal of the instant appeal. [Para 11] [7 4-A-B]
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.            G
2994 of 2010.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 18.11.2003 of the High
Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad in Family Court
Appeal No. 30 of 2003 and dated 30.8.2005 in Review Petition   H
    70       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A   No. 9108 of 2005.

        Nandita Rao, Supriya Yadav Kavita Wadia for the
    Appellant.

      Anantbhushan Kanade, Aribam Guneshwar Sharma, N.L.
B Yadav for the Respondents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.
c         2. In this appeal the appellant has challenged two orders
    passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court.
    The first is the judgment and order dated 18th November, 2003,
    dismissing Family Court Appeal No.30 of 2003 and the second
    is the judgment and order dated 30th August, 2005, passed in
0   Review Petition No.9108 of 2005,. dismissing the Review
    Petition as well.

       3. At the very beginning it may be mentioned that the
  respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce in the Family
  Court at Aurangabad on 29th July, 1999, on the ground that the
E appellant herein is a patient of schizophrenia. The said petition
  came to be allowed by the Judge, Family Court and decree of
  divorce was passed in favour of the respondent-husband.

        4. Aggrieved by the decree, the appellant moved the High
F   Court which affirmed the judgment and decree of the Family
    Court.

        5. This appeal arises out of Special Leave Petition (C)
  No.9482 of 2007 and when notice was issued on 14th May,
  2007, the same was limited to the question of the findings of
G the Courts below relating to the mental disorder of the appellant.
  Notice was also issued as to payment of a lump sum amount
  by the respondent-husband to the appellant since it was
  expressly stated on her behalf that she did not wish to cha!lenge
  the final decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent-
H husband. When the matter came up for final hearing, Ms.
SUVARNALATA v. MOHAN ANANDRAO DESHMUKH                          71
         & ANR. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
 Nandita Rao, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant,            A
urged that the respondent has remarried after obtaining the
decree of divorce and as a result, since the appellant did not
wish to affect the respondent's second marriage, she had
chosen to confine her challenge to the judgments of the Courts
below to the findings on issue No.2 alone framed by the Family         B
Court, namely, as to whether she is suffering from any mental
 illness? After referring to the findings of the Judge, Family Court
on the aforesaid issue, wherein the case of the respondent-
husband had been accepted and the issue was affirmed in the
affirmative, Ms. Rao then referred to the judgment passed by           c
the same learned Judge of the Family Court at Aurangabad on
28th December, 2002, on the question of custody of the minor
daughter, Naveli, born of the marriage between the parties,
being Petition A-60 of 2001 filed by the respondent-husband.
Ms. Rao pointed out from the judgment that the stand of the            D
respondent-husband that he had better credentials to be
granted custody of the minor daughter than the appellant, was.
negated by the same learned Judge after taking into
consideration the same evidence alleging that the appellant
suffered from schizophrenia. Ms. Rao pointed out that the same         E
learned Judge realized that the earlier order passed by her in
the divorce proceedings had been obtained on a mis-
representation of facts which amounted to fraudulent behaviour
on the part of the respondent-husband. Ms. Rao pointed out that
the learned Judge of the Family Court observed that after
seeing the appellant in Court at the time of trial and at the time     F
when she gave evidence, it was difficult for her to come to the
conclusion that the appellant was schizophrenic. Another
circumstance mentioned in the judgment of the Family Court
in the custody matter relating to the insertion of Copper-T by
Dr. Sakulkar, a Gynaecologist, fully negated the respondent's          G
claim that during the period in question the appellant had
refused to cohabit with the respondent which amounted to
cruelty on her part towards the respondent. Ms. Rao submitted
that since the respondent had remarried, the appellant-wife did
not wish to go into the details and was, therefore, confining her      H
    72      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A   submissions in the appeal to the quantum of payment of a lump
    sum amount by way of permanent alimony.

         6. Ms. Rao submitted that the respondent was leading a
    luxurious life and it was only incumbent for the respondent to
    provide a residence to the appellant and their minor daughter,
8
    and to pay a sum of Rs.75 lakhs by way of permanent alimony.
    She prayed for an order accordingly.

         7. Appearing for the respondent-husband, Mr.
   Ananthbhushan Kanade, learned Advocate, attempted to
C emphasize the findings of the Courts below regarding the
   alleged mental disorder of the appellant, but focused more on
   the amount claimed by the appellant towards permanent
   alimony. He submitted that the claims made by the appellant
   were not only without any foundation, but exorbitant and that the
o· fact that respondent had purchased an lnnova car did not justify
   the claim of the appellant.

        8. Mr. Kanade also submitted that the claim of the appellant
  regarding payment of a lump sum amount by way of permanent
E alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was
  not maintainable in view of the pendency of four matters relating
  to grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal
  Procedure Code and under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption
  and Maintenance Act, 1956, for the minor daughter. Since on
  14th May, 2007, notice was issued on the application for
F condonation of delay and also on the Special Leave Petition
  on the question of the findings relating to mental disorder and
  payment of lump sum amount to the appellant and since it was
  also recorded that the petitioner did not wish to challenge the
  final decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband, we
G shall confine our judgment and order to the said aspects only.

       9. As far as the prayer for condonation of delay in filing
  the Special Leave Petition is concerned, we are of the view
  that sufficient grounds have been made out to condone such
H delay, particularly because a large portion of the delay was on
 SUVARNALATA v. MOHAN ANANDRAO DESHMUKH                         73
          & ANR. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
                                                                          l
account of the pendency of the Review Petition which had been         A
filed against the judgment and order of the High Court
dismissing her appeal. The delay in filing the Special Leave
Petition is, accordingly, condoned.

     10. As far as the question of findings relating to the mental    8
disorder of the appellant is concerned, we are inclined to accept
the subsequent finding arrived at by the same learned Judge
of the Family Court, who had decreed the suit of the
Respondent No.1 for divorce, in the custody proceedings.
Having regard to the observations made by the learned Judge           C
while passing orders on the custody petition of the minor, in our
view, we should desist from making any further obser:vation in
the matter, as we are concerned with the effect such findings
may have on the minor child. Suffice to say tha;t we are unable
to accept and agree with the findings regarding the appellant's
alleged mental disorder/schizophrenia and have little or no           D
hesitation in holding that such findings cannot be sustained and
have been rightly rejected by the learned Judge of the Family
Court.

      11. This brings us to the last question involving the quantum   E
of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. As we have already pointed out hereinbefore, the said
prayer is not only maintainable but also jµstified in the facts and
 circumstances of the instant case. The statements made in
paragraphs 7 to 12 of the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the            F
appellant to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, have not been denied by the
respondents, except to the extent that the vehicle indicated had
been purchased by the respondents after obtaining a loan. The
list of assets owned by the respondent No.1, set out as               G
Annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit, indicates that the
respondent No.1 is sufficiently well-off to provide for a suitable
lump sum amount towards permanent alimony as maintenance
to the appellant and her daughter, Naveli, though may not be
to the extent as claimed by the appellant. Since it is not possible   H
    74      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A for us on the general information supplied, to arrive at the
  estimated income of respondent No.1, we are of the view that
  while retaining the matter in this Court, the Family Court may
  be directed to take additional evidence to ascertain the
  estimated income of the respondent No.1 from the list of assets
B indicated by the appellant, and, thereafter, to send the same
  to this Court for passing final orders in this appeal.

        12. It is, therefore, ordered that the appeal be kept pending
  for a period of three months and the records be remitted to the
C learned Judge, Family Court at Aurangabad, to take additional
  evidence relating to the estimated income of the Respondent
  No.1, keeping in mind the list of assets annexed by the appellant
  to her Rejoinder Affidavit and to send back the same to this
  Court for final disposal of the instant appeal. Such additional
  evidence is to be taken within two months from the date of
D receipt of a copy of this order by the learned Family Judge,
  Aurangabad, and the same is to be sent to this Court within a
  fortnight thereafter.

        13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Judge, Family
E Court at Aurangabad, Maharashtra, forthwith and the parties are
  directed to appear before the said Court on 26th April, 2010
  for the aforesaid purpose.

   K.K.T.                                        Matter adjourned.