Smt. Swetha Mothikane vs Shamantha Davele M.Y.

N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is by the wife challenging that portion of decree for dissolution of marriage where permanent alimony is refused.

The respondent herein was working as Booking Clerk at Shalimar and Olympia Theaters belonging to the petitioner''s father. The petitioner used to visit cinema theaters with her father frequently. Acquaintance developed with her and the respondent, who was working as Booking Clerk, which culminated to love between them. Further acquaintance developed between them while both of them were prosecuting their computer courses at Vikas Computer Centre, Yadavagiri, Mysore.

It is the case of the respondent that it is the petitioner who on her own fell behind him and because of her insistence he decided to many her. The material on record shows that after deciding to marry, even before the marriage, they got their marriage registered with the Sub-Registrar, Nanjangud. After the said registration petitioner continued to stay with her parents for about six months. It is thereafter, the marriage was performed in a Temple on 4.5.2006 without the knowledge and consent of her parents. The marriage lasted hardly for a period of six months. The petitioner accuses the respondent and his parents for demanding dowry and forcing to get share in her father''s property. When she refused she was subjected to cruelty. Therefore, she preferred the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The matter was contested.

After trial the family Court accepting the case of the petitioner has granted a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage and also set aside the registration certificate. However, the request of the petitioner for permanent alimony by way of monthly maintenance is rejected. It is against that portion of the order rejecting the permanent alimony the petitioner is before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order rejecting the permanent alimony contends that the respondent is having an income of Rs. 15,000/- by way of salary. Respondent and his mother have also sold a family house for Rs. 5 lakhs, which is deposited in the Bank and he is deriving interest accrued on the said deposit. The Family Court has erred in the order denying on the ground that the petitioner''s father is a wealthy person, the respondent has no obligation to maintain his wife and even if a decree for divorce is passed, the petitioner is entitled to permanent, alimony.

We do not find any substance in the said contention. The evidence on record discloses that the petitioner admittedly hails from an affluent family. Her father is owning three cinema theaters and also house properties at Mysore and Bangalore. After separation the petitioner is staying with her father. She is an educated lady. She is working at Max New York Life Insurance Company as Advisory Agent. Ex.R.2 shows that she has received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the year 2007-08 by way of commission. On the contrary, the respondent is working as a Sales Man at S & V Medicals, drawing a salary of Rs. 3,767/- per month. Though they owned a house, it is sold for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in order to perform the marriage of his sister. Thereafter, he took a rented premises and he living there with his family members. It is clear from the material on record that it is a love marriage. Because of difference in the social status, the marriage could not last for six months. In the circumstances, naturally they have to part and the Family Court has rightly blessed them with a decree for divorce. In our view, the matter should end there. The petitioner is comfortably living with her parents and financially sound. She is an young lady having better prospectus and by taking another person of her status can lead a comfortable life and forget the respondent. The order passed by the family Court is sound, legal and valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for interference. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.