Pradeep Kumar Rath vs Susmita Mishra .... Opposite Parties
2025 Latest Caselaw 462 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pradeep Kumar Rath vs Susmita Mishra .... Opposite Parties on 12 May, 2025

Bench: B. P. Routray, Chittaranjan Dash

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                      MATA No. 198 of 2022


Pradeep Kumar Rath              ....                          Appellant
                                              Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate


                              -versus-
Susmita Mishra                  ....                   Opposite Parties
                                         Mr. M. Kanungo, Sr. Advocate

                    MATA No. 38 of 2022
Susmita Mishra                  ....                          Appellant
                                         Mr. M. Kanungo, Sr. Advocate
                              -versus-

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Rath          ....                   Opposite Parties
                                              Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate

                  CORAM:
    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

                 Date of Judgment: 12.05.2025


 By the Bench:

 1.     Both the Appeals arise out the Judgment and order dated
 31.01.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
 Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No.414 of 2015 and the same
 having been heard analogously are disposed of by this common
 Judgment.

 2.     The Appellant-wife in MATA No.38 of 2022, inter alia
 challenged the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2022 praying to
 MATA Nos. 198 & 38 of 2022                               Page 1 of 7
 set aside the same while the Appellant-husband in MATA No.198
of 2022 challenged the aforesaid impugned judgment only in
respect to the quantum of permanent alimony.

3.     The Respondent-husband in MATA No.38 of 2022 being

the Appellant in MATA No.198 of 2022, moved the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No.414 of 2015, inter alia, praying for a decree of divorce. The Respondent-wife accordingly contested the case. The learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar having heard both the parties and assessing the evidence led before it, allowed the application of the husband by declaring the marriage of the parties dissolved, by a decree of divorce and further directed the husband to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) to the wife towards permanent alimony.

4. In course of hearing before this Court, the Respondent- wife agreed not to disturb the decree of divorce passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in the impugned judgment and accordingly both the parties limited their challenge to the quantum of alimony only.

5. The factual matrix giving rise to the dispute between the husband and wife, found necessary for the disposal of the issue regarding permanent alimony, is that out of the wedlock between the parties, they have begotten a son and a daughter. Both the son and daughter are residing with the wife and are major. It is further case of the parties that the husband was a doctor engaged in Government hospital and took voluntary retirement. The wife on the other hand is engaged as a guest teacher with effect from July

2023 and receiving monthly remuneration of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) being engaged in Times Scholars' Gurukul, Gothopatana, Bhubaneswar. The husband at the time of seeking voluntary retirement was receiving gross pension of Rs.97,002/- (Rupees Ninety-Seven Thousand and Two only) per month and net amount of Rs.87,002/- (Rupees Eighty-Seven Thousand and Two only). While the husband prays for reduction of the quantum of alimony fixed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, the wife prays for enhancement of the same to the extent of Rs.1,00,000,00/- (Rupees One Crore Only).

6. On the direction of this Court, both the parties filed affidavits in respect to their income, assets and liabilities respectively. The husband, though disclosed his net pension amount to be Rs.87,002/- (Rupees Eighty-Seven Thousand and Two only), claims to have liabilities of taking care of his parents, who are aged about 91 years and 84 years. He also submits that he spends Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) towards the medications for his parents besides his domestic expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand only) towards the care-taker and house-help and accordingly insists for reduction of the permanent alimony. The wife on the other hand claims that the husband besides his pension, is having substantial income from his private practice, visiting various hospitals including Vivekananda's Heath Care & Medical Hospital, KIMS, Aditya Care Hospital, Shree Hospital and various other private clinics in Bhubaneswar.

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the husband to the effect that the wife is professionally engaged and has income of her own, is not entitled to the enhancement of the alimony has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the wife.

8. Before adverting to address the issue in fixing the permanent alimony, it is profitable to refer to the various principles laid down in this respect by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parvin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain reported in [2024] 12 S.C.R. 543, held as follows:

"30. Before going into the details of the financial position of the parties, it is imperative that we highlight the position of law with regard to determination of permanent alimony. This Court, in a catena of judgments, has laid down the factors that needs to be considered in order to arrive at a just, fair and reasonable amount of permanent alimony.

31. There cannot be strict guidelines or a fixed 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 Parmar1, and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal2.

32. This Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra), provided a comprehensive criterion and a list of factors to be looked into while deciding the question of permanent alimony. This judgment lays down an elaborate and comprehensive framework necessary for deciding the amount of maintenance in all matrimonial proceedings, with specific emphasis on permanent alimony. The same has been reiterated by this Court in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (Supra). The primary objective of granting

[2011] 9 SCR 371 : (2011) 13 SCC 112

[2012] 7 SCR 607 : (2012) 7 SCC 288

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. The Court in these two judgments laid down the following factors to be looked into:

i. Status of the parties, social and financial. ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children. iii. Parties' individual qualifications and employment status. 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 liabilities. These are only guidelines and not a straitjacket rubric. These among such other similar factors become relevant.

33. This Court in Kiran Jyot Maini (Supra), while discussing the husband's obligation to maintain the wife and the importance of his financial capacity in deciding the quantum, observed that 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 fair 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 postseparation."

9. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has also laid down the principles to ensure equitable determination of

financial supports for the wife and dependent child. It is reiterated that the alimony should be determined having regard to the income of the parties, other properties (if any), the conduct of the parties, and other circumstances as the Court may deem just and proper.

10. The case in hand, does not, however, underscores any ambiguity in respect to the various aspects of the income, assets and liabilities of the parties. Needless to mention, that even though the children are major and the Appellant-husband kept paying the maintenance for all of them regularly during the trial as and when directed by the Courts, he cannot shirk in discharging his social responsibility as a father vis-à-vis the children. Further, the earning of the wife itself does not disqualify her to claim permanent alimony, more so, when her income from the temporary service is very negligible. Admittedly, the husband, has taken voluntary retirement and as submitted, is taking care of his parents who are too old and must be passing through the old age ailment requiring the husband to spend after their medication and well-being.

11. Keeping in view, therefore, the age of the parties, the children being in marriageable age and the quantum of remuneration of the wife from her engagement as a guest teacher and over all surrounding circumstances, we feel it appropriate to fix the permanent alimony to Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only). In our humble opinion, this amount shall fairly protect the interest of the wife and children without imposing any punitive or unreasonable financial burden on the husband, thus aiming to safeguard the interest of both the parties. The husband is, therefore, directed to pay the said amount as permanent alimony to

the wife-Appellant within a period of three months, failing which the wife shall be at liberty to proceed for execution to realise the same in accordance with law. Meanwhile, we expect the husband, who has all along been obedient in complying with the direction of the Courts, shall not put the wife to distress and comply the direction as above.

12. In view of the discussions as above, while the impugned Judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court Bhubaneswar, in dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce is confirmed, the quantum of permanent alimony is modified by enhancing the same from Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) to Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only).

13. Both the Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

(B. P. Routray) Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO A.K.Pradhan/Bijay Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 13-May-2025 16:00:42