# JALENDRA PADHIARY v. PRAGATI CHHOTRAY

- **Citation:** [2018] 3 S.C.R. 490
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-04-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3876 of 2018
- **Bench:** R. K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jalendra-padhiary-v-pragati-chhotray-32779
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Judgment/Order - Reasoned Order - Family Court passed a
decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of appellant-husband
and respondent-wife - The Court also directed the appellanthusband to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- and litigation
expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-wife - Aggrieved with
the part of order which directed appellant to pay permanent alimony,
appellant filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court,
which was dismissed - Whether the Division Bench of the High
Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine
and thereby upholding the order of the Family Court insofar as it
related to awarding permanent alimony to the respondent-wife -
Held: No - On perusal of the order of the Family Court and the
High Court, it would show that both Courts failed to apply their
judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy insofar as award
of permanent alimony to the respondent-wife is concerned - Both
the Courts did not even mention the factual narration of the case
set up by the parties on the question of award of permanent alimony
and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning
and categorical findings on the material issues such as, financial
earning capacity of wife, a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way
of permanent alimony to the wife was given - Direction wholly
unsustainable in law - Neither the Family Court nor the High Court
considered the legal principles applicable to the issues involved
and passed cryptic and unreasoned orders.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Mere perusal of the order of the Family Court
and the High Court would go to show that both the Courts failed
to apply their judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy
insofar as award of permanent alimony to the respondent(wife) is
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 490
 490
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
491
concerned. Both the Courts did not even mention the factual
narration of the case set up by the parties on the question of
award of permanent alimony and without there being any
discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on
the material issues such as, financial earning capacity of husband
to pay the alimony and also the financial earning capacity of wife,
a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony to
the wife was given. Such direction is wholly unsustainable in law.
[Para 15] [494-B-D]
2. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts
the need to pass reasoned order in every case, which must contain
the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis,
the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the
parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and
the reasons in support of the findings recorded based on
appreciation of evidence on all the material issues arising in the
case. [Para 16] [494-E]
3. Neither the Family Court nor the High Court kept in
mind these legal principles and passed cryptic and unreasoned
orders. Such orders undoubtedly cause prejudice to the parties
and in this case, it caused prejudice to the appellant(husband)
because the orders of the High Court and Family Court deprived
him to know the reasons for fixing the permanent alimony amount
of Rs.15,00,000/- payable to his wife. [Para 17] [494-F]
4. The manner in which both the Courts passed the order
cannot be countenanced and thus the matter is remanded to the
Family Court to decide the quantum of payment of permanent
alimony afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the
observations made supra. [Paras 18, 19] [494-G; 495-A]

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
JALENDRA PADHIARY
v.
PRAGATI CHHOTRAY
(Civil Appeal No. 3876 of 2018)
APRIL 17, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Judgment/Order - Reasoned Order - Family Court passed a
decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of appellant-husband
and respondent-wife - The Court also directed the appellanthusband to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- and litigation
expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-wife - Aggrieved with
the part of order which directed appellant to pay permanent alimony,
appellant filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court,
which was dismissed - Whether the Division Bench of the High
Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine
and thereby upholding the order of the Family Court insofar as it
related to awarding permanent alimony to the respondent-wife -
Held: No - On perusal of the order of the Family Court and the
High Court, it would show that both Courts failed to apply their
judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy insofar as award
of permanent alimony to the respondent-wife is concerned - Both
the Courts did not even mention the factual narration of the case
set up by the parties on the question of award of permanent alimony
and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning
and categorical findings on the material issues such as, financial
earning capacity of wife, a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way
of permanent alimony to the wife was given - Direction wholly
unsustainable in law - Neither the Family Court nor the High Court
considered the legal principles applicable to the issues involved
and passed cryptic and unreasoned orders.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Mere perusal of the order of the Family Court
and the High Court would go to show that both the Courts failed
to apply their judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy
insofar as award of permanent alimony to the respondent(wife) is
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 490
 490
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
491
concerned. Both the Courts did not even mention the factual
narration of the case set up by the parties on the question of
award of permanent alimony and without there being any
discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on
the material issues such as, financial earning capacity of husband
to pay the alimony and also the financial earning capacity of wife,
a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony to
the wife was given. Such direction is wholly unsustainable in law.
[Para 15] [494-B-D]
2. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts
the need to pass reasoned order in every case, which must contain
the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis,
the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the
parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and
the reasons in support of the findings recorded based on
appreciation of evidence on all the material issues arising in the
case. [Para 16] [494-E]
3. Neither the Family Court nor the High Court kept in
mind these legal principles and passed cryptic and unreasoned
orders. Such orders undoubtedly cause prejudice to the parties
and in this case, it caused prejudice to the appellant(husband)
because the orders of the High Court and Family Court deprived
him to know the reasons for fixing the permanent alimony amount
of Rs.15,00,000/- payable to his wife. [Para 17] [494-F]
4. The manner in which both the Courts passed the order
cannot be countenanced and thus the matter is remanded to the
Family Court to decide the quantum of payment of permanent
alimony afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the
observations made supra. [Paras 18, 19] [494-G; 495-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3876
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2014 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in MATA No. 113 of 2014.
Kumar Gaurav, B. N. Dubey, Robin Khokhar, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. for the Respondent.
JALENDRA PADHIARY v. PRAGATI CHHOTRAY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated
03.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in M.A.T.A.
No.113 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
the appeal filed by the appellant herein in limine at the stage of admission,
in consequence, upheld the order dated 17.09.2014 passed by the Family
Court, Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No.24 of 2011.
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and it would be
clear from the facts stated hereinbelow.
4. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondent is the
defendant in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises. The dispute is
between the husband and wife and it relates to award of permanent
alimony payable to wife.
5. The appellant-husband filed a petition against the respondentwife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act") before the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar
seeking decree for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion
and cruelty. The respondent filed her written statement and denied the
material averments of the appellant's claim. On the basis of the pleadings
and the evidence adduced by the parties, the Family Judge, by order
dated 17.09.2014, allowed the petition and passed a decree of divorce
by dissolving the marriage. The Family Judge also directed the
appellant(husband) to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- and
litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent(wife).
6. The appellant(husband), felt aggrieved by that part of the order
of the Family Court by which the appellant was directed to pay permanent
alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent(wife), filed appeal before
the Division Bench of the High Court. By judgment/decree dated
03.11.2014, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant's
appeal and affirmed the order of the Family Court.
7. Against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, the
appellant(husband) has filed this appeal by way of special leave in this
Court.
8. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,
is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing
the appellant's appeal in limine and thereby upholding the order of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
493
Family Judge insofar as it related to awarding permanent alimony of
Rs.15,00,000/- to the wife(respondent).
9. Heard Mr. Kumar Gaurav, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, learned counsel for the respondent.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, set
aside the impugned order as also the order of the Family Court to the
extent it fixes the award of permanent alimony and remand the case to
the Family Court for deciding the question of grant of permanent alimony
payable to wife afresh on merits in accordance with law.
11. The operative portion of the order of the Family Court reads
as under:
"The petition of the petitioner is allowed on contest in favour
of the petitioner. A decree of divorce is passed and the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is
hereby declared dissolved with effect from the date of
decree. The petitioner is directed to pay permanent alimony
of Rs.15,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to
the respondent."
(emphasis supplied)
12. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court reads as
under:
"After looking into the allegations made and pleadings taken
by the parties, as recorded in the impugned judgment, which
during the course of argument could not be snipped, we do
not find any reason to interfere with the amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- awarded as permanent alimony to the wife
by the learned Judge, Family Court. In the present time,
the said amount is wholly insufficient for the wife to maintain
her entire life.
Since we do not find any merit in the appeal, we dismiss
the same in limine at the very stage of admission."
13. The only question involved in the appeal before the High Court,
which was carried to this Court in this appeal by the appellant (husband),
was whether the award of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- by the
JALENDRA PADHIARY v. PRAGATI CHHOTRAY
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Family Court to the respondent(wife) was legally and factually
sustainable.
14. Insofar as the grant of decree of divorce in favour of the
husband is concerned, it was not challenged by the respondent (wife) in
appeal before the High Court and hence it attained finality.
15. In our view, mere perusal of the order of the Family Court
and the High Court quoted supra, would go to show that both the Courts
failed to apply their judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy
insofar as award of permanent alimony to the respondent(wife) is
concerned. Both the Courts did not even mention the factual narration
of the case set up by the parties on the question of award of permanent
alimony and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning
and categorical findings on the material issues such as, financial earning
capacity of husband to pay the alimony and also the financial earning
capacity of wife, a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way of permanent
alimony to the wife was given. In our opinion, such direction is wholly
unsustainable in law.
16. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts the
need to pass reasoned order in every case, which must contain the
narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues
arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles
applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings
recorded based on appreciation of evidence on all the material issues
arising in the case.
17. It is really unfortunate that neither the Family Court nor the
High Court kept in mind these legal principles and passed cryptic and
unreasoned orders. Such orders undoubtedly cause prejudice to the parties
and in this case, it caused prejudice to the appellant(husband) because
the orders of the High Court and Family Court deprived him to know the
reasons for fixing the permanent alimony amount of Rs.15,00,000/-
payable to his wife.
18. We cannot countenance the manner in which both the Courts
passed the order which has compelled us to remand the matter to the
Family Court for deciding the issue afresh on merits.
19. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal,
set aside the impugned order of the High Court and the order of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
495
Family Court insofar as it relates to fixing of Rs.15,00,000/- towards
payment of permanent alimony to the respondent(wife) by the
appellant(husband) and remand the case to the Family Court to decide
the quantum of payment of permanent alimony afresh in accordance
with law keeping in view our observations made supra.
20. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained ourselves
from making any observation on merits of the controversy while forming
an opinion to remand the case to the Family Court for the reasons
mentioned above. The Family Court would, therefore, decide the issue,
uninfluenced by any of our observations, strictly in accordance with law.
If necessary, the Family Court would also grant liberty to the parties to
amend the pleadings and adduce evidence on the question of quantum
of payment of permanent alimony.
21. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order of the
High Court and the order of the Family Court insofar as it relates to
fixation of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- are set aside with the
aforesaid directions for compliance.
22. We direct the Family Court to decide the case within six months
as an outer limit.
23. Till the disposal of the case, the appellant(husband) will continue
to pay monthly maintenance amount, which was fixed by the Family
Court, to the respondent regularly. Needless to say, the payment of
monthly maintenance will be subject to the final determination made by
the Family Court.
Ankit Gyan
 Appeal allowed.
JALENDRA PADHIARY v. PRAGATI CHHOTRAY
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]