LexSUVARNALATA versus MOHAN ANANDRAO DESHMUKH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 4 S.C.R. 68 SUVARNALATA v. MOHAN ANANDRAO DESHMUKH & ANR. (Civil No. 2994 of 2010) APRIL 5, 2010 [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 th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.