Patna High Court
Punita Singh @ Pampam vs Rajesh Kumar Singh 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.438 of 2021
======================================================
Punita Singh @ Pampam Daughter of Pritish Chandra Singh @ Pritosh
Chandra Singh, Wife of Rajesh Kumar Singh resident of Mohalla- Laliyahi,
P.S.- Sahayak, District- Katihar presently residing at Mohalla- Binodpur, P.S.-
Katihar, District- Katihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Singh Son of Vijay Kumar Singh, resident of Mohalla-
Laliyahi, P.S.- Sahayak, District- Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Mandal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA)
Date : 18-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by appellant-wife
against the judgment and order dated 23.06.2021 and decree
dated 30.06.2021 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Katihar in Matrimonial Suit No. 362 of 2017
whereby and whereunder the divorce petition filed by the
respondent-husband has been allowed on the ground of cruelty.
The marriage solemnized between appellant-wife and
respondent-husband on 28.06.2010 had been dissolved. The
respondent-husband has been directed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as
permanent alimony to the appellant-wife within two months.
3. The case of respondent-husband is that marriage
Patna High Court MA No.438 of 2021 dt.18-04-2025
2/12
between the parties solemnized on 28.06.2010 as per Hindu rites
and customs and after marriage the appellant-wife resided only
14 days at her matrimonial house thereafter, returned back to her
parental home and started living therein. It is alleged that the
wife demanded to live separately from the joint family and did
not fulfill her duty towards her bedridden father-in-law who was
suffering form paralysis. Since, 2nd week of July, 2010 she
completely spoiled matrimonial tie and refused to return to her
matrimonial house to lead conjugal life with her husband. She
made false allegations against the respondent-husband and his
family members and filed criminal case bearing Complaint Case
No. 2571 of 2015 against them. On the direction of learned
S.D.J.M., Katihar, the appellant-wife came to her matrimonial
home on 29.03.2017 and after that she used to threaten them to
send them to jail by making false allegation. She also insulted
the respondent-husband and his father by hurling abusive
language. She had stated that she came there with the said
purpose only and she returned to her parental home on
24.04.2017
. Due to false allegation, the respondent-husband
remained in jail custody from 26.04.2017 to 22.05.2017 leading
miserable life. The conduct of appellant-wife comes under the
category of extreme cruelty and she also deserted the
Patna High Court MA No.438 of 2021 dt.18-04-2025
respondent-husband.
4. The appellant-wife appeared and filed her written
statement and denied the allegation alleged by the respondent-
husband. She admitted that the marriage between the parties
solemnized on 28.06.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies
and she went to her matrimonial home but the respondent-
husband and his family members tortured her for insufficient
dowry and they had driven her out on 07.08.2010 after
snatching all her belongings. She came to her parental home and
several efforts including panchayati failed to settle the matter.
On 12.09.2015, she went to her matrimonial home with her
parents and relatives but she was abused and was not allowed to
enter into the house and under compelling circumstances, she
filed complaint case. It is further stated that on Court direction
she went to her matrimonial home on 29.03.2017 with the
respondent-husband from the Family Court. On the statement
of appellant-wife and considering her condition, the learned
S.D.J.M. on 24.04.2017 sent the appellant to her parental house
and conducted enquiry. The learned S.D.J.M. on finding guilty
of respondent-husband remanded him to jail custody.
5. The conciliation between the parties failed.
6. The learned Family Court held that on 29.03.2017, the
Patna High Court MA No.438 of 2021 dt.18-04-2025
respondent-husband had taken the appellant-wife to his house
from which the inference can be drawn that he had waived his
right to bring divorce petition on the ground of desertion within
statutory period of two years and filed divorce petition on
31.07.2017 on the ground of desertion is not maintainable.
7. The learned Family Court further held that the
difference arose between the parties from inception of marriage
and it reaches at the stage that they resided separately for about
11 years of their prime age despite the fact that their house is
situated at the distance of less than 1 and 1/2 K.M. and their
matrimonial relation is deemed to be died and there is no chance
of any revival of the same. The appellant-wife had not taken
steps till the year 2015 for restitution of conjugal right but she
had filed complaint case and maintenance case in the year 2015.
The respondent-husband remained in jail custody from
26.04.2017 to 22.05.2017 in dowry torture case and she also
sent written complaint to the respondent's department to take
action against the respondent which comes under the mental
cruelty. The learned Family Court concluded that respondent-
husband is entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty and
dissolved the marriage between the parties. The learned Family
Court also directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as
Patna High Court MA No.438 of 2021 dt.18-04-2025
permanent alimony within two months. The appellant-wife,
aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Family Court
filed the instant appeal before this Court.
8. It is evident that the relationship between the parties
appears to be strained from the very beginning of their marital
tie and further it only soured over the years. It is relevant to note
that the appellant-wife stayed together with the respondent-
husband at her matrimonial house for only 14 days in the year
2010 after their marriage and later for about 25 days in the year
2017 during the proceeding in Complaint Case No. 2571 of
2015. They have made serious allegations against each other
and have been conducting litigation. They have no intention to
reconcile, since, the reconciliation proceedings between both the
parties also failed. The admitted long standing separation,
nature of differences, prolonged litigation, pending adjudication
and unwillingness of the parties to reconcile suffice as evidence
to show that the marriage between the parties has broken
irretrievably. No child was born from the wedlock of the parties.
9. At the outset, 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 and there is no hope of any
Patna High Court MA No.438 of 2021 dt.18-04-2025
restoration of their conjugal relationship. In view thereof, they
have mainly made submissions on the point of quantum of
permanent alimony to be granted to the appellant-wife.
10. It appears from the record particularly order dated
29.04.2024, the appellant-wife demanded Rs.25 lakhs as
permanent alimony however, the respondent-husband is ready to
pay Rs.5 lakhs as permanent alimony. Both the parties have not
reached on a particular sum as permanent alimony. Learned
counsel for the parties submitted that permanent alimony may
be decided by this Court on the basis of material available on
record.
11. Therefore, as such what is required to be considered
by this court in the present appeal is "whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs.5 lakhs awarded by
the learned Family Court to the appellant-wife as permanent
alimony required to be modified?"
12. Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for
grant of permanent alimony at the time of passing any decree or
at anytime subsequent thereto. 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
Patna High Court MA No.438 of 2021 dt.18-04-2025
the dependent spouse and does not provide for penalizing the
other spouse in the process.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh
v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, provided a
comprehensive criterion and 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 and the same has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pravin
Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3678 has taken note of the various judgments to clarify the
position of law with regard to determination of permanent
alimony and the factors that need to be considered in order to
arrive at a just, fair, and reasonable amount of permanent
alimony. In para 31 it is held as under:
"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
Patna High Court MA No.438 of 2021 dt.18-04-2025
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
liabilities.
These are only guidelines and not a
straitjacket rubric. These among such other
similar factors become relevant."
16. It is pertinent to mention here that duration of the
marriage i.e., how long the marriage existed is also a relevant
Patna High Court MA No.438 of 2021 dt.18-04-2025
factor in determining the quantum of permanent alimony.
Generally, marriages that lasts more than 10 years are entitled to
be granted a lifetime 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."
(emphasis supplied)
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
conduct of the parties must be considered."
(emphasis supplied)
Patna High Court MA No.438 of 2021 dt.18-04-2025
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, it appears from the affidavit of
assets and liabilities of respondent-husband, that he is aged
about 44 years and has qualification of B.Sc.(Hons.). He is
working as panchayat Teacher and draws Rs.45,857/- salary per
month including dearness allowance, house rent allowance and
medical allowance. He has an ancestral property measuring 2
katha of undivided land and does not have any immovable self-
acquired property. He has general monthly expenses of Rs.
10,000/- for his personal needs. Additionally, he has personal
loan of Rs. 11,23,000/- which he availed on 06.10.2023 for the
medical treatment of his father. He has one dependent brother
whose monthly expenses amount to Rs. 5,000/-. Moreover, the
appellant-wife is a graduate and runs home tuition staying with
her parents.
20. It appears from the affidavit of assets and
liabilities filed on behalf of appellant-wife, it is apparent that
she is 39 years old, holds a degree of B.A. in Home Science,
Patna High Court MA No.438 of 2021 dt.18-04-2025
and is residing at her parental home. It is further stated that her
general monthly expenses are Rs. 14,000/-. Moreover,
maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month has been awarded to her,
effective from the date of order passed in Maintenance Case No.
311 of 2015 vide order dated 06.07.2019. During the proceeding
of this case, on the direction of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
the respondent-husband paid Rs.1,74,000/- as arrears of
maintenance to the appellant-wife.
21. This Court is conscious of the fact that the cost of
living has significantly increased over the years due to inflation
and this factor is also required to be considered in the present
case.
22. Considering the material on record, the argument
advanced on behalf of parties and totality of facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that one-
time lump sum amount of Rs.15 Lacs would be reasonable, just,
balance and fair amount as permanent alimony to the appellant-
wife. This amount would cover all future claims, if any, of the
appellant-wife. The said amount is required to be paid to the
appellant-wife within a period of six months from the date of
this judgment.
23. In view whereof, judgment and order dated
Patna High Court MA No.438 of 2021 dt.18-04-2025
23.06.2021 and decree dated 30.06.2021 in Matrimonial Suit
No. 362 of 2017 on the file of learned Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Katihar stands modified insofar as
enhancement of permanent alimony amount from Rs. 5 Lakhs to
that of Rs. 15 Lakhs is concerned without disturbing the
remaining order.
24. Pending litigations among parties shall be
withdrawn by the respective parties to avoid further any
complications among them.
25. Accordingly, 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)
harish/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 10.02.2025
Uploading Date 19.04.2025
Transmission Date N/A
