1 APHC010286332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1355/2025 Between: 1. C. Ravidran, s/o Chengaiah, Aged about 65 years, R/o D.no.2-116, G.D. Nellore village (post) and Mandal Chittoor district. ...PETITIONER AND 1. D Ramya Mery, D/o Doraiswamy, w/o C. Ravidran, Major, Working in a church, R/o Papithetty Palle Village and post, Gudipala Mandal, chittoor district. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow this Revision by setting aside the Order dt.12-03-2025 passed in I.A.No.474/2022 in D.O.P.No.72/2018 on the file of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District and dismiss the same IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to STAY the operation of Order dt.12-03-2025 passed in I.A.No.474/2022 in D.O.P.No.72/2018 on the file of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District till disposal of the main CRP Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY 2 Counsel for the Respondent: 1. J M NAIDU The court made the following order: The present civil revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 12.03.2025 in I.A.No.474/2022 in D.O.P.No.72 of 2018 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2. The brief averments of this petition are summarized as under: The petitioner herein filed D.O.P.No.72/2018 under Section 10(A)(1) of the Indian Divorce act seeking to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent dated 22.11.2004 by way of decree of divorce with costs. Wherein, the respondent filed I.A.No.474/2022 under Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act seeking permanent alimony of Rs.1,00,00,000 (Rupees one crore only) to her in the said O.P. The learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, heard both the petitions and decreed D.O.P.No.72/2018 on 12.03.2025 dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on the ground of desertion and partly allowed the I.A.No.474/2022 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent on 12.03.2025. Assailing the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.474/2022, the present revision came to be filed. 3 3. Heard Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and no representation for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and the contents of the affidavit filed along with application before the court below contended that, the trial court had failed to consider that, within 20 days of the marriage, the respondent (wife) had deserted the petitioner and leading independent life while working in a church at Chennai drawing Rs.25,000/- as salary. He further submitted that, the respondent is having two storied building and Ac.4.00 cents agricultural land worth more than Rs.1,50,00,000/- and therefore, she is capable of maintaining herself and is not entitled for permanent alimony. He further submitted that, though the petitioner is leading his life basing on the pension which is not even sufficient for his maintenance, he has been paying maintenance of Rs.5,000/- every month to the respondent since 20.08.2014, as such the question of payment of permanent alimony does not arise at all. He further submitted that since the respondent failed to prove that petitioner has drawn an certain amount towards his retirement benefits, the court below ought not to have granted Rs.15,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent. As such, the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.474/2022 directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards 4 permanent alimony is erroneous and accordingly, prayed to set aside the said order by allowing the revision. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel. 6. As could be seen from the averments of the petition-affidavit, it is evident that the petitioner herein has worked as Head constable in the Police department and was drawing more than Rs.90,000/- per month as gross salary apart from having joint family properties whereas the contents of the counter states that the respondent is working in a Church at Chennai drawing a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/- apart from having agricultural land worth Rs.1.50 crores and has been receiving pension under Vontari Mahila. The contention of the respondent (wife) is that the petitioner(husband) has received Rs.90,00,000/- towards his retirement benefits, but no material was placed on record evidencing the same. However, when the petitioner (husband) has admitted his retirement from service, it is inevitable and logical conclusion that he might have got some monetary benefits, which cannot be denied. 7. Section 37 of the Indian Divorce Act envisages that the courts are empowered to order for permanent alimony to the wife, on being grant of decree of dissolution, but it must be having regard to her fortune(if any), to the ability of the husband and to the conduct of the parties, it thinks reasonable 5 etc. Hence, if it is found that the husband has ability or sufficient means, the courts can order for a permanent alimony for the wife to ensure a decent standard of living to her. 8. In Vinny Parmvir Parmar Vs Parmvir Parmar1, the Apex court has held thus: “while granting permanent alimony, the court is required to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party”. 9. On careful reading of the above, it is clear that while granting permanent alimony, the courts have to look into the fact that the wife should be in such a reasonable comfort zone to live in the society and the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party i.e., husband. 10. The court below, by taking all the said facts into consideration and circumstances of the case including the financial status of both the parites, has rightly allowed-in-part by directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. Hence, this court finds no grounds warranting the interference of this court and the revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 1 AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 2748 6 Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS