Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2022 DAILYLAW 1836 (CAL)

SANTOSH v. KAVITA SHARMA

FAT/1/2022 · 2026-08-05

Partha Sarathi Sen, Rajasekhar Mantha

body2022

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** FAT/1/2022 Santosh Vs. Kavita Sharma Mr. K. Sabir … for the appellant Mr. M.P.Kamaraj … for the respondent/OP August 5, 2026 [SR] Item No. 1 1. Affidavits of assets have been filed by the appellant- husband and the respondent-wife. 2. The respondent-wife has not disclosed her salary and any deposit account. She is admittedly working in a private school. An experience certificate dated 02.07.2026 has been handed over to the Court today, and the same is taken on record. It is not understood as to why the particulars of salary and bank account statements have not been mentioned in affidavit of assets by the opposite party-wife. 3. The experience certificate dated 02.07.2026 of the respondent-wife indicates that she draws payment of Rs.39,000/- per month and will get provident fund upon her retirement. She may also be entitled to pension under the NPS Scheme floated by the EPF authorities. 4. The appellant-husband has undertaken to bear all the educational expenses, present and future of the daughter born out of the wedlock who is now 25 years old. The daughter has completed MBBS course and is doing internship and is receiving a stipend of about Rs.30,000/- per month 2 5. The appellant-husband has undertaken to fund any higher studies that the girl child may want to pursue. He has also undertaken to bear all expenses of marriage of the daughter. 6. Given the suppression of the materials in the affidavit of assets filed by the respondent-wife, she is liable for being dealt with in accordance with law as contained in the undertaking attached to the affidavit. The appellant-husband is a Craft Instructor and draws monthly, a salary of Rs.1.16 lakhs. 7. The appellant-husband has offered Rs.7.00 lakhs as permanent alimony. The opposite party-wife has demanded Rs.40.00 lakhs. It appears from the affidavit of assets filed by the respondent-wife that she has agricultural land of about 200 Sq.mtrs. 8. The affidavit of assets filed by the appellant indicates that he is living in his brother’s house in the first floor. The respondent-wife is living in the ground floor of the same house. 9. Having regard to the suppression of material facts by the respondent-wife, this Court is not inclined to lend credence to the affidavit of assets filed by her. 10. Given the fact that the parties are living separately for more than 19 years now, this Court has already recorded in its earlier order that the continuation of the marriage between the two parties would amount to cruelty on both of them. The marriage has been broken down irretrievably. There shall be a decree of divorce between the appellant and the respondent. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent is 3 hereby dissolved. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Mat.Suit No.18 of 2017 dated 12.11.2021 is set aside. 11. The Registry shall draw up and complete the decree expeditiously. 12. This Court is of the view that the permanent alimony payable by the appellant-husband to the respondent-wife must be fixed at Rs.10.00 lakhs in full and final settlement of all claims of the respondent-wife against the appellant-husband on any account whatsoever. 13. It is expected that the appellant-husband pays the amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs mandatorily and positively within a period of three months from date into the bank account of the respondent-wife which shall be communicated by advocate on record for the respondent-wife to the appellant’s advocate on record. 14. With the aforesaid observations, FAT/1/2022 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Trial Court Records be returned to the Trial Court for information and action. 16. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. ) ( Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)