[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Rekha Sharma vs Sudhir Kumar on 18 April, 2025
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.638 of 2014
======================================================
Rekha Sharma, Wife of Sudhir Kumar and Daughter of Sri Rajeshwar
Sharma, Resident of Mohalla - Govindpuri Bibiganj, P.S.- Sadar District
Muzaffarpur, prsently resident of Mohalla Hathsaraganj, P.S.- Hajipur Town,
District- Vaishali
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Sudhir Kumar, Son of Late Surya Narain Sharma, Resident of Mohalla -
Govindpuri Bibiganj, P.S.- Sadar, District -Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate.
Mr. Deep Shekhar, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA)
Date : 18-04-2025
Heard both the parties.
2. This appeal by the appellant-wife has been
preferred against the judgment dated 22.04.2014 passed by
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in
Matrimonial Case No.187 of 2008 whereby the petition filed by
the respondent-husband against the appellant-wife seeking
dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty and desertion was allowed.
3. The factual background of the present case is
that marriage between appellant-wife and respondent-husband
Patna High Court MA No.638 of 2014 dt.18-04-2025
2/13
was solemnized on 29.06.2006 according to Hindu rites and
customs. The respondent's wife started living at her matrimonial
house and from their conjugal life they blessed with a son on
11.02.2007
. It is alleged by the respondent-husband that the
appellant-wife became disobedient to the respondent and his
family members and began to speak abusive language against
them. The respondent-husband fell seriously ill but appellant-
wife did not look after him and insisted to go to her parental
house and went there on 25.02.2007. After one month, the
respondent went to bring back his wife but the family members
used filthy language against him and he was informed that
appellant-wife will not go to his house. In March, 2007, the
petitioner’s brother with his relative went to bring back the
appellant-wife and, thereafter, petitioner also went there for her
Bidayee but she refused to join her matrimonial house. Hence,
the respondent filed the petition for divorce on the ground of
cruelty and desertion.
4. The appellant-wife in her written statement filed
on 07.04.2009 denied the allegations made against her in the
petition and submitted that with consent of respondent-husband
and his family members she had gone to her parental house and
she was ready to go with respondent-husband. It is alleged that
Patna High Court MA No.638 of 2014 dt.18-04-2025
3/13
due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry the respondent and
his family members ousted her from her matrimonial home due
to which she alongwith her son were living in her father’s
house.
5. The conciliation between the parties failed.
6. In view of facts and circumstances and materials
available on record learned Family Court, Muzaffarpur after
analyzing the evidence held that the act of the wife amounts to
cruelty and the wife has deserted the respondent-husband so the
husband is entitled to a decree of divorce. It is further held that
the appellant-wife is entitled for alimony and she can get
alimony through the process of the court. The marriage is
accordingly dissolved and the suit has been decreed vide
impugned judgment dated 22.04.2014.
7. It is evident that the relationship between the
parties has been strained since its inception and has
progressively deteriorated over time. Attempts at reconciliation
have been unsuccessful. It is pertinent to note that the parties
cohabited only for a brief period during the subsistence of the
marriage. Although a son was born out of the wedlock, the
parties have been living separately for approximately eighteen
years and it was invisible divorce. They have levelled serious
Patna High Court MA No.638 of 2014 dt.18-04-2025
4/13
allegations against each other and have been engaged in
continuous litigations since their separation. There is a clear
absence of intention on either side to resume cohabitation or
revive the matrimonial bond, as they have not lived together
since the year 2008. The prolonged separation, nature of
disputes, pendency of litigation, and mutual unwillingness to
reconcile are sufficient evidence that the marriage has
irretrievably broken down.
8. It is also relevant to take note of that the
respondent-husband stated that after the decree of divorce
granted by the Family Court, he had married for the second time
on 10.11.2014 and from the second marriage, they are now
blessed with two children. One son was born on 04.07.2015 and
another son was born on 11.08.2016. The respondent-husband is
paying monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- per
month to appellant and Rs.1,000/- per month to their son) vide
order dated 04.09.2012 in Maintenance Case No. 120 of 2009. It
is claimed by the respondent-husband that in compliance of
panchayati, the respondent-husband purchased a property on
08.03.2016 in the name of appellant-wife worth Rs. 3,58,000/-.
However, it is stated on behalf of the appellant-wife that 0.9
decimals (4 dhurs) of land was purchased by her father in her
name.
Patna High Court MA No.638 of 2014 dt.18-04-2025
5/13
9. Learned counsel for the parties conceded that in
view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the relationship
between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has
irretrievably broken down. Since 2008, both the parties are
residing separately and there is no hope of any restoration of
their conjugal relationship at this distance of time and it is
impracticable in view of later development. It is in the interest
of justice that this case may be disposed of by granting
permanent alimony to be paid to appellant-wife by the
respondent-husband. The respondent-husband proposed to pay
one time settlement amount to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.
Ten lakhs) along with arrears of maintenance amount, if any.
The appellant-wife has not accepted the said proposal and
submitted that respondent-husband may be directed to provide
accommodation to the appellant and child and also make
arrangement for further education of the child. Learned counsel
for the parties submitted to decide the quantum of permanent
alimony to be paid by respondent-husband to appellant-wife on
the basis of material on record.
10. In view of the rival contentions, it is to be
decided by this Court “what is a reasonable amount to be paid
by the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife for her claim
Patna High Court MA No.638 of 2014 dt.18-04-2025
6/13
towards permanent alimony in the facts and circumstances of
this case.”
11. Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
provides for grant of permanent alimony and maintenance. The
primary objective of granting permanent alimony is to ensure
that the dependent spouse is not left without any support and
means after the dissolution of the marriage. It aims at protecting
the interests of the dependent spouse and does not provide for
penalizing the other spouse in the process.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various
judgments clarifies that there cannot be a fixed formula for
determination of quantum of permanent alimony. In the case of
Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court laid down a detailed and structured framework
for determining the amount of maintenance, particularly
focusing on the aspect of permanent alimony. The Court
outlined a comprehensive set of factors to be considered in such
determinations across all matrimonial proceedings. This guiding
framework has been subsequently affirmed and reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod
Patel, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Jyot
Patna High Court MA No.638 of 2014 dt.18-04-2025
7/13
Maini (supra), while discussing the husband’s obligation to
maintain the wife and the importance of his financial capacity in
deciding the quantum, observed under para 26 that:-
“26. Furthermore, the financial
capacity of the husband is a critical factor in
determining permanent alimony. The Court shall
examine the husband’s actual income, reasonable
expenses for his own maintenance, and any
dependents he is legally obligated to support. His
liabilities and financial commitments are also to be
considered to ensure a balanced and fail
maintenance award. The court must consider the
husband’s standard of living and the impact of
inflation and high living costs. Even if the husband
claims to have no source of income, his ability to
earn, given his education and qualifications, is to
be taken into account. The courts shall ensure that
the relief granted is fair, reasonable, and consistent
with the standard of living to which the aggrieved
party was accustomed. The court’s approach
should be to balance all relevant factors to avoid
maintenance amounts that are either excessively
high or unduly low, ensuring that the dependent
spouse can live with reasonable comfort post-
separation.”
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pravin Kumar
Jain v. Anju Jain reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678,
examined various precedents to clarify the legal position
concerning the determination of permanent alimony. The Court
emphasized the necessity of considering relevant factors to
ensure that the amount awarded is just, fair, and reasonable. In
paragraph 31 of the judgment, it has been held as under:
“31. There cannot be strict guidelines or a
Patna High Court MA No.638 of 2014 dt.18-04-2025
8/13fixed formula for fixing the amount of
permanent maintenance. The quantum of
maintenance is subjective to each case and is
dependent on various circumstances and
factors. The Court needs to look into factors
such as income of both the parties; conduct
during the subsistence of marriage; their
individual social and financial status; personal
expenses of each of the parties; their
individual capacities and duties to maintain
their dependents; the quality of life enjoyed by
the wife during the subsistence of the
marriage; and such other similar factors. This
position was laid down by this Court in Vinny
Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar, and
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath
Agrawal.”
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court, taking note of
Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) and Kiran Jyot Maini (supra), in
para 32 of Pravin Kumar Jain (supra) laid down the
following eight factors to be looked into in deciding the
quantum:
“i. Status of the parties, social and
financial.
ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and the
dependent children.
iii. Parties’ individual qualifications and
employment statuses.
iv. Independent income or assets owned by
the applicant.
v. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in
the matrimonial home.
vi. Any employment sacrifices made for the
family responsibilities.
vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-
working wife.
viii. Financial capacity of the husband, his
income, maintenance obligations, and
Patna High Court MA No.638 of 2014 dt.18-04-2025
9/13liabilities.
These are only guidelines and not a
straitjacket rubric. These among such other
similar factors become relevant.”
16. Duration of the marriage is also one of the
relevant factors in determining the permanent alimony. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) in para 74
observed that:-
“74. In contemporary society, where several
marriages do not last for a reasonable
length of time, it may be inequitable to
direct the contesting spouse to pay
permanent alimony to the applicant for
the rest of her life. The duration of the
marriage would be a relevant factor to
be taken into consideration for
determining the permanent alimony to
be paid.”
17. The conduct of the party seeking the relief is
also relevant. The three-judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 299, observed in para 26 as under:
“26. …..We must note that sub-section 1 of
Section 25 uses the word “may”. A grant of a
decree under Section 25 of the 1955 Act is
discretionary. If the conduct of the spouse who
applies for maintenance is such that the said
spouse is not entitled to discretionary relief, the
Court can always turn down the prayer for the
grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of
the 1955 Act. Equitable considerations do apply
when the Court considers the prayer for
maintenance under Section 25. The reason is that
Section 25 lays down that while considering the
prayer for granting relief under Section 25, the
Patna High Court MA No.638 of 2014 dt.18-04-2025
10/13conduct of the parties must be considered.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. In the light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) and Aditi @ Mithi
v. Jitesh Sharma reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451, the
parties have filed their affidavit of assets and liabilities.
19. In the present case, the parties are living
separately for about 17 years. Appellant-wife is residing in her
parental house and her son, aged about 18 years, is studying in
Xth standard. The respondent-husband is Post Graduation in
M.Sc. Botany. He claimed that he does not have any regular job.
He is maintaining himself, his parents, and present wife along
with two children by means of private tuition. He asserted in his
affidavit that he is presently working as a carpenter and he earns
a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- only. Also, that he has no assets
except 12 Kathha share in the ancestral land property. The
appellant-wife claimed that there are more than 2 kattha (10.06
decimals) of land recorded in the name of respondent’s mother
in Muzaffarpur Town on which four-storied building has been
constructed on one kattha and a three-storied building on
another kattha and total value of these properties is
approximately Rs. 4 crores. It is stated by the appellant-wife that
she came to know that respondent-husband is employed in the
Patna High Court MA No.638 of 2014 dt.18-04-2025
11/13
bank at Muzaffarpur, earning a monthly income over
Rs.60,000/- per month which is denied by the respondent-
husband. However, no documentary proof has been filed on
behalf of the appellant-wife to prove her claim.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pravin Kumar Jain (supra) while considering obligation of
father to support child beyond majority for education and
financial security has observed in para 41 as under:
“41. It is also equitable and only obligatory
for a father to provide for his children, especially
when they have the means and the capacity to do
the same. Even though the son is now major and
has just finished his engineering degree, the High
Court has rightly observed that it is only after
completion of a college/university degree and in
some cases, completing a post-
graduation/professional degree, would the child be
able to secure employment. In fact, it can safely be
concluded that, in today’s competitive world,
gainful employment may be feasible only after the
child has pursued education beyond 18 years of
age. Mere completion of his engineering degree
does not guarantee a gainful employment, in these
competitive times. The appellant herein has
sufficient means to support his child, and thus
provision should also be made for his maintenance
and financial security as well. An amount of Rs 1
crore (Rupees one crore only) towards the
maintenance and care of the son appears to be fair,
which he can utilise for his higher education and
as security till he becomes financially
independent.”
21. It is legal and moral obligation of the father to
ensure adequate provision for the maintenance and financial
Patna High Court MA No.638 of 2014 dt.18-04-2025
12/13
security of his child, irrespective of gender, even beyond the
age of 18 years, particularly in circumstances where the child is
unable to sustain themselves due to reasons such as continued
education, physical or mental incapacity, or other justifiable
grounds. The duty of a parent, especially that of the father, does
not cease merely upon the child attaining the age of majority,
but extends so long as the dependency persists and the need for
support is genuine and established.
22. Keeping in view of the fact that the appellant-
wife is residing separately for 18 years from respondent-husband
alongwith her son and it has not been brought on any
documentary evidence to show that she has no any other source
of income other than maintenance amount granted by the Court.
We feel it appropriate to grant permanent alimony to the tune of
Rs.20 Lakhs to be paid by the respondent-husband as one time
settlement with respect to her permanent alimony including the
educational and other expenses of the child to the appellant-wife,
thereby, upholding the principle of fairness and equity in
matrimonial disputes, within a period of four months from the
date of passing of this judgment.
23. It is hereby clarified that the aforesaid amount
shall not preclude or otherwise affect the right of the son of the
parties to inherit property, if any, to which he may be legally
Patna High Court MA No.638 of 2014 dt.18-04-2025
13/13
entitled.
24. Further, it is clarified that any arrears amount
payable to appellant and her son for their maintenance in
Maintenance Case No. 120 of 2009 till the date of this judgment
shall be calculated and paid by the respondent-husband without
fail and at the earliest.
25. This Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of
with aforesaid directions.
26. Pending I.A’s., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
I am on the same page
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
khushbu/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 18.02.25 Uploading Date 19.04.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_2]
Source link