Partly allowed

Shatabdi Das v. Dipti Prakash Parida

Orissa HC25 Apr 2023MATA/38/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Orissa disposed of combined appeals challenging the quantum of permanent alimony. Settling the amount at Rs. 80 lakhs, the court directed immediate payment of a portion via a security deposit invested by the court, with the balance paid in installments while dismissing further claims.

What did the court decide?

Permanent alimony fixed at Rs. 80 lakhs; Rs. 50 lakhs released from court deposit under specific conditions; balance paid in two installments; criminal proceedings stayed pending alimony payment.

Shatabdi Das Vs Dipti Prakash Parida — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MATA No.38 of 2021

¶2

Shatabdi Das

¶3

.. .… Appellant Mr. Ramakanta Sahoo, Advocate Mr. R. Nayak, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Dipti Prakash Parida …… Respondent

¶6

Mr. P.K. Rath, Advocate Ms. S. Dash, Advocate

¶7

MATA No.37 of 2021
Dipti Prakash Parida .. .… Appellant
Mr. P.K. Rath, Advocate
Ms. S. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
Shatabdi Das …… Respondent
Mr. Ramakanta Sahoo, Advocate
Mr. R. Nayak, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
25.04.2023

¶8

Order No.

¶9

¶10

These matters are taken up through hybrid mode.

¶11

Both the appeals are combined for disposal by a common order as those emerge from a common judgment.

¶12

In these appeals, the judgment dated 27.04.2021 delivered in Civil Proceeding No.455 of 2013 by the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar has been challenged.

¶13

¶14

Both the Appellants have challenged only the quantum of the permanent alimony as settled by the Judge, Family Court in favour of the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021. While deciding the said alimony, the Judge, Family Court has observed that the annual income of the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 is $72.900 U.S. Dollars per annum. On that basis and after making the due deduction from the salary, the permanent alimony has been quantified at Rs.50,00,000/to be paid by the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021, the Petitioner in the said civil proceeding. It has been further directed that the said amount shall be paid within a period of three months, failing which the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021 shall be at liberty to lunch a proceeding for realizing the said money through the process of the court. According to the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021, the said amount is inadequate to maintain the standard of life the said Appellant (the wife) is accustomed to live. On the other hand, the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 has stated that the said quantification is not based on any tenable income record, but simply on the basis of a statement made by the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 in his cross-examination. The said amount of permanent alimony warrants to be rationalised. In support of this contention, Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 has referred to a document, which has been admitted at the time of argument before the Judge, Family Court (Ext.X) to demonstrate that according to the said document, the annual gross income of the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 is

¶15

¶16

58,410.49 U.S. Dollars (the gross pay). After the statutory deduction, the said amount comes down to 57,303.81 U.S. Dollars. Mr. Rath, learned counsel has submitted that after deduction, the net income will come down to 42,262 U.S. Dollars, equivalent of Rs.34, 96,757/-, on conversion to Indian Rupee. Therefore, the income per month would be Rs.2, 91,396/-.

¶17

Mr. R.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021 has controverted the said statement made by Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel by contending that according to the corporate earning summary, which has been produced by the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 in the Court of the Judge, Family Court, his net salary per annum is $57,303.81 after the statutory deduction. If that amount is converted to the Indian Rupee, it will come to Rs.47,41,317.23. Thus, the monthly salary would be Rs.3,95,109.76. True it is that the deduction that has been shown by Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel is reflected in the corporate earning salary statement, Ext.X, which was produced before the Court below at the stage of argument and was admitted in presence of the parties.

¶18

At the time of admission of MATA No.37 of 2021, this Court had passed the order dated 06.07.2021 directing the Appellant (husband) to deposit Rs.30 lakhs in advance as condition-precedent for admission of the appeal. The said amount was paid by three demand drafts, as reflected in the memorandum dated 04.08.2021 filed by the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 in this Court. In terms of the order

¶19

¶20

dated 06.07.2021, the entire amount of Rs.30 lakhs has been invested in the term- deposit in the State Bank of India for earning the interest. Initially the investment was made for six months in the name of the Registrar, Judicial. According to the RBI directives, those investments will got automatically reinvested unless a specific instruction is given not to reinvest the said money. As such, we have reasons to believe that the said amount is being reinvested regularly since the day of the first investment i.e. 10.08.2021.

¶21

The parties have filed their respective affidavits in respect of their resources, earnings and liabilities in terms of the decision of the apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Ors .: (2021) 2 SCC 324. We have seen that the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021, the wife, had been teaching in a Graduate Engineering College and earning a fixed salary per month. But according to Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel, presently she is unemployed, as during the COVID-19 period she was disengaged and never engaged again. But her qualification keeps her always ahead to get employment. The Court cannot close its eyes to the aspect of her prospective employment, while determining the permanent alimony.

¶22

Mr. Rath, learned counsel has strenuously stated that the earning of the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021 shall be adjusted against the amount of permanent alimony. That apart, Mr. Rath, learned counsel has proposed that the amount that has been paid in the form of maintenance allowance should be adjusted while reckoning the alimony. In this regard, Mr.

¶23

¶24

Rath, learned counsel has referred to certain observations of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) in respect of adjustment.

¶25

Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel has, after referring all the documents, relating to the income of the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021, contended that the net salary per annum be calculated at 57,303.81 U.S. Dollars, equivalent to Rs.47,41 37.23 of the Indian Rupee. Thus, the monthly salary should be calculated at Rs.3,95,109.76. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel has not denied the fact that the claim of lump sum alimony of Rs.80 lakhs has been made by the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021. But for determining of reasonable alimony, certain deduction principles are to be applied. 1/4^th of the annual income of the husband, when husband is not saddled with any further liability, is to be taken as the basic unit for calculation of the permanent alimony. On such calculation, on the basis of net annual income at $57,303.81, the monthly unit would come to Rs.98,777/-(1/4^th of the income). If it is converted to the annual income, the amount would be Rs.11,85,312/-. The appropriate multiplicand shall be used on the said amount for getting the quantum of the lump sum permanent alimony. We will be failing in our duty, if we do not observe that no straight jacket formula is available for quantification of the alimony. In our estimate, such outcome has to be factored by the other two important elements, such as, the future prospect of employment of the person in whose favour the permanent alimony will be settled and the other liability of the person who will pay the said permanent alimony.

¶26

¶27

Having regard to all those factors and after applying the multiplicand 10, the said amount comes to Rs.1,18,53,120/-. Due deduction has to be made considering the potential of employment of the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021 and the other liabilities of the Respondent, because the Respondent is now at the age of 41 and he may begin a new life.

¶28

Thus, having interaction with the counsel for the parties extensively, we accept the claim of the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021 [the wife] and we settle the permanent alimony at Rs.80 lakhs to be paid by the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021. The Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021 shall receive the amount that has been invested in the State Bank of India in the name of Registrar, Judicial, High Court of Orissa. The remainder of the amount i.e. Rs.50 lakhs has to be treated as outstanding and that amount has to be paid by the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 in two equal instalments. First instalment of Rs.25 lakhs shall be paid within a period of three months from today and the final instalment of Rs.25 lakhs shall be paid within a period of six months from today. The entire outstanding amount as noted above shall be paid either in the form of demand draft or the said amount can directly be transferred to the bank account of the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021. We would request Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021 to supply the bank details of the Appellant to Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 in the course of the day.

¶29

¶30

Hence, the permanent alimony is settled finally. No future claim should be raised by the parties. That apart, they shall not interfere with in their individual life in any manner.

¶31

In the result, the appeal being MATA No.37 of 2021 is dismissed and the appeal being MATA No.38 of 2021 is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶32

It is made abundantly clear that, no further maintenance allowance, the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021 shall be entitled to, in terms of the order passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.550 of 2016. Even no arrear outstanding amount shall be claimed by the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021. Even the compensation as directed to be paid shall not recovered from the Respondent of MATA No.38 of 2021, only if the payment is made within the stipulated period. In the event of default of payment in terms of our direction, the said compensation amount shall be paid by the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021.

¶33

Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly.

¶34

A copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties, free of cost.

¶35

(S. Talapatra) Judge

¶36

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶37

Murmu

Shatabdi Das v. Dipti Prakash Parida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shatabdi Das v. Dipti Prakash Parida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rezia Bibi Vs State of Odisha

Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Aditya Alluminium Vs State of Odisha

Debjani Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Meerashree Suman Vs State of Odisha

Biswajit Sahoo Vs State of Odisha