Remanded

Smti Deboshree Sinha v. Uttam Sinha

Gauhati HC4 Dec 2020I.A.(Civil)/1597/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal against a divorce decree. The High Court set aside the District Judge's order awarding Rs. 25,000 alimony due to a lack of reasoned application of mind and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing within one year.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2016; remanded the matter to the District Judge for a fresh determination within one year.

Smti Deboshree Sinha Vs Uttam Sinha — Maintenance and Alimony | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010058432018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Mat.App./33/2018

¶5

SMTI DEBOSHREE SINHA

¶6

W/O UTTAM SINHA, D/O LATE DEBENDRA SINHA, R/O VILL. SINGARIA, P.O. AND P.S. PATHARKANDI, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN 788724

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

UTTAM SINHA

¶9

S/O LATE KALIDAS SINHA, R/O VILL. SUDARSHANPUR, PART-II, P.O. SUDARSHANPUR, UNDER P.S. LALA, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN 788160

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B P SINHA Advocate for the Respondent : G UDDIN

¶11

Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/1597/2018

¶12

SMTI DEBOSHREE SINHA W/O UTTAM SINHA D/O LATE DEBENDRA SINHA R/O VILL. SINGARIA P.O. AND P.S. PATHARKANDI DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN 788724

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

UTTAM SINHA S/O LATE KALIDAS SINHA R/O VILL. SUDARSHANPUR

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

PART-II P.O. SUDARSHANPUR UNDER P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 788160

¶17

-----------Advocate for : MR. B P SINHA Advocate for : appearing for UTTAM SINHA

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 02-02-2021

¶22

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ)

¶23

Heard Mr. B. P. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel representing the respondent.

¶24

This is a First Appeal filed by the wife challenging certain findings made by the learned District Judge, Karimganj, in his order dated 16.11.2016 passed in a divorce petition filed by the appellant herself, i.e. Title Suit (Divorce) No. 72/2015.

¶25

The admitted position is that the appellant and the respondent were wife and husband, their marriage was solemnised in 1993 as per Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Out of their wedlock they have four children, one male child and three female children. Thereafter, the suit for dissolution of marriage was filed by the appellant mainly on the ground of cruelty. She also alleged that she was not able to maintain herself and her children and, therefore, a permanent alimony was also sought by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs). The matter proceeded ex parte against the husband and the only finding recorded by the learned District Judge is as under:

¶26

“Upon hearing and on perusal of case records including the uncontroverted evidence it appears that a prima facie case is established on that the

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

respondent being legally married husband of the petitioner wilfully and intentionally behaved cruelly with the petitioner and deserted her without fault on the part of the petitioner though he has means to maintain his family and thus no marital relation between the petitioner and the respondent is prevailing due to cruelty and desertion by the respondent. As such, the petitioner is entitled to get a decree, as prayed for. The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner as permanent alimony.”

¶29

Thereafter, the learned District Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiff and, as far as maintenance is concerned, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been directed to be paid to the plaintiff/appellant.

¶30

The appellant is aggrieved inasmuch as the amount of maintenance is extremely low. However, on perusal of the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the learned District Judge has not applied his mind to the facts of the case before him. The order passed by the learned District Judge does not reflect as to what were the points before him, what was the controversy involved in the case and what were the reasons given by him for arriving at the conclusion.

¶31

In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Karimganj, in Title Suit (Divorce) No. 72/2015. The matter is remanded back to the learned District Judge for determination afresh after giving due notice to both the parties. Since it is a matrimonial matter and requires expeditious hearing, we direct the court below to hear the matter, without granting any long adjournments to any of the parties, so that the hearing is concluded and a decision is given in the case as expeditiously as possible but definitely within one year from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the court. The Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to communicate this order to the court concerned for onward compliance.

¶32

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Smti Deboshree Sinha v. Uttam Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Deboshree Sinha v. Uttam Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhab Rajbongshi Vs Prodyut Kumar Bora and 12 Ors.

Rinchin Tashi and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Arunachal Pradesh and 5 Ors.

Smti. Manalisha Bezbaruah Vs Sri Biju Bezbarooah

Mrinal Bhattacharyya Vs Smti Mitu Sarma

Sri Mrinal Bhattacharyya Vs Smti Mitu Sarma

Sri Mrinal Bhattacharyya Vs Smti Mitu Sarma