THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.M.A. No. 1474 of 2003 Oral order: This C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 17.09.2002 passed by the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P. No. 155 of 1995, directing the appellant to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and an amount of Rs.60,500/- towards the amount given by the parents of the respondent to the appellant at the time of marriage. The appellant is the husband while the respondent is the wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.11.1986. While so the appellant, filed O.P. No. 155 of 1995 seeking divorce from the respondent, and on contest by respondent, the Family Court, Hyderabad, vide order dated 25.09.1996, allowed the O.P., dissolved the marriage of the appellant with the respondent and granted him divorce, and directed him to return the articles and dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- given by the parents of the respondent at the time of marriage, and also pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent and the minor child towards permanent alimony. Questioning the part of the order that directed the appellant to pay permanent alimony of Rs.1,50,000/-, the appellant filed appeal in C.M.A. No. 1622 of 1996, and this by order dated 17.11.1996, remanded the matter to the Family Court, with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry to determine the permanent alimony after permitting both parties to lead evidence on the aspects and decide whether the appellant received Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and whether it was returned or not. Pursuant to the order of remand, the Family Court, Hyderabad, issued notices to the parties, and as in spite of service of notice, the respondent did not appear, she was set ex parte, by order dated 31.08.2002. Thereafter, the Family Court, Hyderabad, considering the material evidence placed by the appellant, came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.1,21,000/- was lying in fixed deposit in joint account of the appellant and the respondent and that the said amount was given at the time of marriage as Tikka. And that even otherwise, as the amount is lying in the joint account of both the appellant and the respondent, both of them are entitled to Rs.60,500/- each, and accordingly holding so, directed the appellant to pay Rs.60,500/- to the respondent with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing counter, and Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent alimony, both to the respondent and the minor child, with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from 25.09.1996. Questioning the said order, the appellant filed the present C.M.A. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Family Court, has not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and the finding recorded by it are perverse and not supported by any evidence. He further submitted that the respondent earlier filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Durg, Madhya Pradesh, and that the said complaint was dismissed on 27.05.1996, but the Family Court, has not taken this fact into consideration. He further submitted that the additional evidence, namely Exs. P1 to P5, produced by the appellant along with his additional chief-affidavit, was not at all considered by the Family Court, observing that those documents are not marked, which is contrary to the docket order dated 12.09.2002. He further submitted that the father of the respondent, had taken away all the articles given at the time of marriage in a truck bearing No. 24 A 4426 to their native place in Madhya Pradesh, but the Family Court, has not considered this aspect of the matter. He further submitted that the respondent did not make a mention of the draft number, date of payment etc., in the written statement; that the respondent is an income tax assessee and the income tax return dated 26.03.1996 proves that her income was Rs.54,260/- during that year and whereas the income of the appellant was only Rs.1,750/- per month, as per the income certificate issued by his employer dated 03.09.2002. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the order under appeal be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order under appeal. He further submitted that as the fixed deposit of Rs.1,21,000/- was lying both in the names of the appellant and the respondent, the Family Court has rightly held that both the appellant and the respondent are entitled to equal share in it, and having held so, has rightly directed the appellant to pay Rs.60,500/- to the respondent with interest thereon, and considering the status of the parties, has rightly awarded permanent alimony of Rs.1,00,000/-, both to the respondent and the minor child. He submitted that since the findings recorded by the Family Court, are based upon proper appreciation of evidence, no interference is called for therewith by this Court. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the order under appeal. Though the appellant contends that his income is only Rs.1,750/- per month, as is evident from the salary certificate dated 03.09.2002, the fact remains, the appellant prior to his marriage, in his bio-data stated that his income was Rs.12,000/- per month and that he was working as Engineer at Kuwait, but in his evidence stated that he was an Electronic Technician. In the evidence given by him before the Family Court on 10.09.1996, he stated that he was doing business by running a shop at Ameerpet and that he makes regular business to Bombay. No doubt, the appellant produced the evidence as indicated above, to show that his income was only Rs.1,750/-, but the fact remains, for the first time, after this Court remanded the matter to the Family Court, for determining the appropriate permanent alimony payable by him to the respondent and the minor child, has the appellant has taken this plea that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.1,750/- as is evident from the salary certificate dated 03.09.2002 given by his employer. In fact, the Family court, had earlier fixed the permanent alimony, based on the evidence given by him that he was doing business and that prior to his marriage, he was drawing Rs.12,000/- per month, as reflected in his bio data. That being so, we are of the considered view, that the Family Court, was justified in not giving any credence to the salary certificate dated 03.09.2002 produced by the appellant, and fixing the permanent alimony payable by the appellant to the respondent and their minor son at Rs.1,00,000/- , based on the evidence let in by him earlier as also their status and the age of the minor son. It is the case of the appellant that no dowry, much less and articles, in the form of ornaments, were given to him by the parents of the respondent at the time of marriage, as alleged by the respondent in the counter. When such is the case of the appellant, it was the duty of the learned Judge to consider whether the averments made by the respondent, which are not supported by any evidence, can be taken into consideration for proving a fact and whether the averments made in the counter, which are not denied by the appellant by filing any rejoinder thereto, would amount to admission. But from the judgment under appeal, it is evident that the learned Judge has not considered the said aspect. Admittedly, R.W.1 did not depose as to what ornaments or articles were brought by her at the time of marriage and with regard to deposit of amount in the joint account of the appellant and the respondent. This apart, her evidence further makes it clear that she did not make a whisper about the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- alleged to have been made by her parents to the appellant at the time of marriage. The only sentence in her evidence is that she is ready to give divorce to the appellant on condition of returning all her ornaments, articles and cash which were offered at the time of her marriage. But, unfortunately, the learned Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter properly Further, the evidence of R.W.1 is not happily recorded by the learned Judge. There is distinction between the word “offer” and “offered”. The learned Judge ought to have considered whether the word typed as “offered” in the deposition of R.W.1, was an “offer” or whether any ornaments and articles were “offered” in terms of such offer at the time of marriage. If the word, which is typed is only “offered”, was only an “offer”, then the question of return of ornaments and articles and cash by the appellant to the respondent, not arise, because it was only an offer and not offered. Another sentence in the deposition of the respondent, which does not convey any meaning is that “it is not true to say that I have received all my articles, gold and other articles at the time of marriage”. Probably, it should have been recorded as “it is not true to say that I have received all my articles, gold and other articles, presented at the time of marriage”. As the evidence of R.W.1 is not recorded properly, it creates a doubt whether gold ornaments were given by the parents of the appellant to the respondent at the time of marriage. Be that as it may, we would like to place on record that the learned Judges while translating the deposition of a witness from vernacular language into English language, must be very careful. They should first understand as what is stated by the witness in the vernacular language, then translate the statement of the witness into English or in the language in which the court conducts its proceedings, and ensure that the statements of the witnesses are correctly typed. The Judges also should be careful while examining the entire evidence and the material on record before dictating the judgment. Be that as it may, the evidence on record produced before the Family Court, disclosed that an amount of Rs.1,21,000/- was lying in fixed deposit in the joint names of both the appellant and the respondent. Considering the said aspect, the Family Court, came to the conclusion that that even assuming that no amount was given by the parents of the respondent to the appellant towards dowry, but as an amount of Rs.1,21,000/- was lying in fixed deposit in the joint names of both the appellant and the respondent, both of them are entitled to an amount of Rs.60,500/- each. The said finding recorded by the Family Court, in the light of the evidence produced by the parties, cannot be said to be erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under appeal. The C.M.A. is bereft of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. 28th December, 2010 NSR/KSR