IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No.57 of 2009
Anil Kumar Tirkey ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Nilam Kumari Kachhap (Tirkey) ... ... ... Respondent
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
------
For the Petitioner: M/s. M.S. Anwar, Altaf Hussain
For the Respondent: Mr. D.K. Chakraborty
------
Reserved on: 23.4.2010 Pronounced on: 27th April, 2010
M. Y. Eqbal, J. Heard Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, who seeks review of the judgment and order dated
18.12.2008
passed in First Appeal No.46 of 2004.
2. The petitioner preferred aforementioned appeal against the
judgment passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in
Matrimonial Suit No.14 of 2000 whereby the suit filed by the
petitioner-appellant under Sections 22 and 23 of the Indian Divorce
Act was dismissed.
3. Before the appeal was taken for hearing, efforts were made for
conciliation but both the parties did not agree to resolve their dispute
and lead conjugal rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, submitted that it would in the interest of both the parties if
the marriage is dissolved. For better appreciation, paragraphs 5, 6, 7,
8 and 9 of the judgment under review is quoted herein below: –
“5. On 26.11.2008, an application was filed by the
respondent-wife under Section 41 of the Indian Divorce Act,
1869 claiming maintenance to the minor daughter living with
her mother. In the said application, it is stated that the entire
expenses of maintenance and education of the minor child is
borne by the respondent who is in her custody and the
appellant has never paid any amount for meeting the
expenses of the daughter. On 01.12.2008, an affidavit was
filed by the respondent stating inter alia that both the
appellant and the respondent have been living separately
since 01.12.1997 and there is no chance of cohabitation of
the parties and as such, a judicial separation may be allowed.
She has further stated that she does not want to claim any
maintenance for herself but for the welfare of the daughter,
who is now about 11 yeas old, the appellant be directed to
2pay a lump sum amount for meeting the marriage and
educational expenses of the daughter.
6. After the affidavits were filed by the parties, the
appeal was finally heard on 03.12.2008.
7. Mr. P.C. Tripathy, learned counsel for the appellant,
on instruction submitted that the appellant is not in a position
to pay lump sum amount for meeting the marriage and
educational expenses of the daughter of the respondent.
Learned counsel submitted that the appellant could not be
able to pay more than a sum of Rs. One lakh.
8. After considering the entire facts of the case and the
welfare of the minor daughter living with the respondent, we
are of the view that the appellant must pay a lump sum of Rs.
Five Lakhs to the respondent which amount shall be spent by
the respondent for meeting the marriage expenses of the
daughter.
9. The appeal is, therefore disposed of by dissolving the
marriage between the appellant and the respondent. The
appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs) to the respondent within three months from today.
4. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner-appellant, seeks review of the judgment on the
ground inter alia that the appellant is not in a position to pay the
amount fixed by the Court. Learned counsel submitted that there was
no prayer made by the respondent for payment of any amount for
marriage of her daughter and, therefore, such condition imposed in
the judgment will amount to hardship on the part of the appellant.
Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is ready to pay
a reasonable amount as per his income to the respondent for the
education and maintenance of his daughter. Learned counsel,
therefore, submitted that the judgment may be reviewed to that
extent.
5. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties,
we are of the definite view that the ground set forth by the petitioner
cannot be a ground to review the judgment passed by this Court.
6. Hence, there is no merit in this application which is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
Jaya Roy, J.
(Jaya Roy, J)
Raman/N.A.F.R.