In an appeal against an order enforcing permanent alimony, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the underlying order had already become final and was not revisited adequately in the previously withdrawn first appeal.
A appeal was dismissed. Pending interim application was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 253 of 2019
Santosh Kumar Mahato ..… Appellant
Anjali Mahato
Versus ..... Respondent
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
For the Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate
Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is a Primary School Teacher who had secured the job on account of the death of his father and he has to maintain his mother as well as his younger brothers but such facts have not been taken into consideration by the learned court below and therefore, the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2019 deserves to be set aside.
It has been submitted that the appellant has challenged the order dated 29.11.2016 in F.A. No. 324 of 2018 which however has been withdrawn by the appellant. It has been submitted that since the main order dated 29.11.2016 has attained finality, the impugned order dated 01.07.2019 need not be interfered with.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the record.
-2-
The factual aspects reveal that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 23.02.2000 as per the Hindu rites and customs.
A suit was preferred for dissolution of marriage in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 419 of 2008 and by judgment dated 04.08.2014 the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 01.07.2019, passed in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 08 of 2017 by Kumari Ranjana Asthana, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/Amardeep
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in imposing permanent alimony without considering the appellant's income and financial dependencies.
Whether the High Court should interfere with an order enforcing a permanent alimony award that had already attained finality.
Whether facts raised for the first time in the present appeal which were available in a withdrawn first appeal should be examined.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Kumar Mahato
Anjali Mahato
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Deepak Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
