V.K. VASANTHA KUMAR! versus R. SUDHAKAR

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 04-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 9 .S.C.R. 545 
V.K. VASANTHA KUMAR! 
v. 
R. SUDHAKAR 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8459-8462 of 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 04, 2014 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SlKRl, JJ.] 
Family Law: 
A 
B 
1 
Permanent alimony - Divorce - High Court holding that c 
the wife should get Rs. 40, 0001- per month and for this purpose 
directed Rs.40,00,0001- to be paid to her by husband as 
permanent alimony - Plea of wife that because of fluctuating 
rates of interest, on fixed deposits, Rs.40,00,0001- would not 
constantly fetch Rs.40, 0001- per month as interest - Held: 
0 
Finding of High Court, while determining the question of 
permanent alimony, of appellant-wife, that she requires 
Rs. 40, 0001- per month has become final -
In the facts and 
circumstances of the case, demand made by appellant is 
justified -
Therefore, respondent is directed to pay another 
E 
Rs. 15, 00, 0001- to appellant towards permanent alimony. 
The marriage of the parties was dissolved by a 
decree of divorce. As regards the permanent alimony, the 
matter reached the High Court, which considering the 
need of the appellant-wife and her three grown up 
F 
children, held that she would need Rs.40,000/- per month 
as expenses and for this purpose she would need 
Rs.40,00-,000/- to invest. The High Court, therefore, 
directed the respondent husband to pay ~o the appellant 
wife Rs.40,00,000/- as against Rs.24,00,0001- as was 
G 
directed by the Family Court. The SLP of the respondent-
husband challenging the said order of the High Court 
was dismissed. 
545 
H 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
In the instant appeals, it was contended for the 
appellant-wife that because of fluctuating rate of interest, 
fixed deposits of Rs.40,00,000/- would not constantly· 
fetch an income of Rs.40,000/- per month and, therefore, 
the amount of permanent alim.ony would need to be 
B increased accordingly. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The SLP against the order of the High . 
Court that the appellant-wife vvould need Rs.40,000/- to 
C meet the expenses and for this purpose, the respondent-
h us band would pay Rs.40,00,000/- as permanent 
alimony, has been dismissed by this Court. Therefore, · 
tt~e finding of the High Court, while determining the 
question of permanent alimony of the appellant, that the 
o appellant requires the amount of Rs.40,000/- per month 
has become final. [para 11] [550-A-C] 
1.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the 
demand made by the appellant is justified. Therefore, the 
E · respondent is directed to pay another Rs.15,00,000/- to. 
·the appellant wife towards permanent alimony. [para 13] 
[550-D-E] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
8459-8462 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2011 of the 
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in 
CMA No. 543 and 933 of 2010 and M:P. No. 1/2010 in CMA. 
No. 543 and 933 of 2010 and in M.P. No. 1/2011 in CMA No. 
G 543 of 2010. 
V.K. Vasantha Kumari Appellant-In-Person. 
E.G. Agrawala, Dheeraj Gupta for the Respondent. 
H -
The Judgments of the Court was delivered by 
V.K. VASANTHA KUMARI v .. R. SUDHAKAR 
547 
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. 
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 llnd Additional Family Court at 
Chennai seeking divorce from the appellant on the ground of 
' 
A 
B 
c 
cruelty. The said FCOP was allowed on 3.11.2009. B.ut both 
D 
the parties carried the appeals No.544 and 932 of 201 O. 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 E 
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." 
· 5. The children of the parties filed Suit No.677 of 2004 
before the High Court of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.