IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH F.A.(Ml No. Division Bench /2008D.B. APPELLANT (non-apDlicant before the familv court ) '^" Prashant Mishra, S/o R.S. Mishra aged about 38 years R/o C/o Father Shri R.S. Mishra, MIG-530 ^...- ^ ./L.. Padmanabhpur Durg, Tah. & Distt. ^:^»w\'^{^"' prsse^" " f^A:^ fi^-0"" /c. RESPONDENT Applicant Before the Family court Durg (C.G.) Present Address Prashant Mishra 2739-B, Morisiya avenue Centaklara, C-A-95051, California (U.S.A.) VERSUS Smt. Sunita Mishra, W/o Shri Prashant Mishra, aged about 35 years, C/o father Shri B.J. Mishra R/o Road No. 32, PlotNo. 572/C, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Tah & Distt. Durg.(C.G.) FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT v ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.NAWAL KiSHORE AGARWAL. JJ. F.A. FM1 No.87/2008 Appellant (Non-appHcant) Respondent (Applicant) Vs Prashant Mishra Smt. Sunita Mishra Present: Mr. Avinash Mishra, Advocate for the appeilant. Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate for respondent. Judament (Oral) (6th September, 2010 ) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act against the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.07.2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit No.OlA/07 thereby dissolving the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent herein and further directing the appellant herein either to pay Rs.25 Lac in lump sumas permanent alimony or pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent during her lifetime. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that marriage between the appeiiant and the respondent was solemnized on 04.2.1999 at Dallirajhara, District Durg according to Hindu rites and thereafter, the respondent came to her matrimonial house at Durg and lived with her husband till 20.2.1999 on which date the appellant left for USA where he is employed. Thereafter, in- iaws of the respondent started harassing and torturing her in the name of dowry anct therefore, she left the house on 24.5.1999. However, even after a lapse of one year of marriage when the appellant did not come back to take the respondent wjth him, the respondent filed an application under Section 13 (1) (12R) & (1<sT) Of the Hindu Marriage Adhiniyam seeking dissolution of marriage. Along with the said application, the respondent has also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance. 1 ^...-^••^ "^^ I ^ ^K 4. After fiiing of the application, summons was issued to the appeilant herein, who appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and in which he has also prayed for dissolution of marriage. However, in reply to the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the appellant has stated that the respondent is an employed iady working in Government College, Dadirajhara and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, whereas, the appellant herein is an unemployed, he has no source of income and he himself is dependent on his retired father. 5. The court below after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence led by both the parties in support of their respective cases, passed the impugned judgment and decree dissolving the marriage between the appeliant and the respondent and further directed the appellant herein to either pay Rs.25,00,000/- in lump sum as permanent alimony or pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent during her lifetime. 6. On carefui and minute examination of the entire evidence, we find that the aliegation regarding earning of the appeliant and property owned by him has not been denied specificaiiy by the appellant. Even from the document of Ex.D-1, which was filed by the appellant herein in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara in a case of judicial separation against the respondent herein bearing No.1-05-FL130394 and in which a separate property assets confirmation has been sttached, it is evident that the appeilant was not only employed but also holding various properties in his name and since nothing has been denied by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the amount fixed by the court below is not excessive. 7. So far as the divorce part ofthe impugned decree is concerned, the appellant has not raised any grievance against the same. 8. in view of the above, we see no good ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the court below. Consequently, the appeal has no substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Roshan/- Sd/- I. M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge -;^1 1