JALENDRA PADHIARY versus PRAGATI CHHOTRAY

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 17-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
JALENDRA PADHIARY
v.
PRAGATI CHHOTRAY
(Civil Appeal No. 3876 of 2018)
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-
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
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
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
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.
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
[2018] 3  S.C.R. 490
   490
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
491
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 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. 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,
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]
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
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
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
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.
JALENDRA PADHIARY v. PRAGATI CHHOTRAY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
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,
in consequence, upheld the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.