Patna High Court
Anisha Alias Anisha Kumari Alias Anisha ... vs Satish Kumar on 30 April, 2025
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.250 of 2019
======================================================
Anisha alias Anisha Kumari alias Anisha Sinha D/o Shashi Kumar Sinha,
Wife of Satish Kumar Prakhand Shikshak, Khabra Middle School, at and
P.O.-Khabra, P.S. Sadar, District-Muzaffarpur and residing with her parents at
Village and P.O. Khabra, P.S. Sadar, District-Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Satish Kumar Son of Late Birendra Mohan Mishra Zila Parishad Shikshak,
Bhola Singh High School, Purushottampur, Muzaffarpur, permanent r/o
Village and P.O.-Bahera Jahidpur, P.S. Nanpur, District-Sitamarhi at present
residing as a monthly tenant in the house of Sri Gulzar Chaudhary, Moh-
Gannipur, Mishra Tola, P.O.-Muzaffarpur Town P.S.-Kazi Mohammadpur,
District-Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md.Imteyaz Ahmad, 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 : 30-04-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed
against the judgment/order dated 22.11.2018 and decree dated
06.12.2018
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Muzaffarpur in Matrimonial Case No. 14 of 2014
whereby the learned Family Court has allowed the divorce case
filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
3. The case of the respondent-husband in brief is
that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on
06.06.2010 according to Hindu rites and customs. The
appellant-wife was taken to the ancestral village of the
respondent-husband where she was treated with warmth and
affection by his family members. It is alleged that the appellant-
wife, from the inception of the marriage, displayed indifference
towards family customs and participated in traditional functions
reluctantly. She used to show disrespect to the respondent's
mother, elder brother, married sister and brother-in-law. She
repeatedly avoided consummation of the marriage. However,
after persistent persuasion, the marriage between both the
parties consummated, but the appellant-wife remained passive
throughout. She insisted on returning to her parental house
where she was taken on 20.06.2010. Due to indifferent and
quarrelsome behaviour of the appellant-wife, the respondent-
husband brought her to Muzaffarpur and initially
accommodated her at his maternal uncle's house. However, she
failed to adjust and frequently quarreled with him and his
relatives. Both the parties then shifted to various rented
accommodations. The appellant-wife allegedly refused to
perform household duties, often stayed out late with her brother-
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
in-law and created frequent disturbances. The appellant-wife
used to visit market with her brother-in-law, Prashant Kumar,
and often return late in night, and on asking for explanation, she
used to outbrust in anger and misbehave with the respondent-
husband. On 10.09.2010, when the respondent-husband reached
his house at 7:30 PM, he found that the lights of his house were
off and Prashant Kumar was sitting on his bed with an
atmosphere pointing to some unholy incident. On making
inquire of the same with the appellant-wife, she started cursing
and abusing the respondent-husband and threatened him to get
him killed or get him implicated in false case of domestic
violence and torture. On 16.09.2010, the respondent-husband
was assaulted by the relatives of the appellant-wife. Eventually,
the appellant-wife left the house of her husband on 15.12.2010
with her belongings, without any prior intimation to the
respondent-husband. A panchayati was convened on
05.02.2011, where reconciliation efforts failed. The respondent-
husband initially filed a divorce petition vide Matrimonial Case
No. 185 of 2011, which was dismissed as premature on
11.03.2013. The Miscellaneous Appeal No. 275 of 2013, against
the said order, was disposed of as withdrawn on 19.12.2013 by
this Court with observation that if a fresh suit is filed, the
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
Family Court, Muzaffarpur shall decide such suit on merits after
hearing the parties in accordance with law. Meanwhile, the
appellant-wife filed dowry torture case under Sections 498A,
494, 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 vide
Kazimohammadpur P.S. Case No. 174 of 2011 against the
respondent-husband and his family members causing immense
mental trauma to the respondent-husband. Due to torture by the
appellant-wife, the mother of the respondent-husband died on
07.06.2013 by heart attack and despite having knowledge of the
same, the appellant-wife did not participate in her shradha-
karma. The elder brother of respondent-husband also sufferred
paralysis due to the cruelty committed by the appellant-wife.
The respondent-husband sought decree of divorce from the
learned Family Court vide Matrimonial Case No. 14 of 2014.
No child was born out of their wedlock.
4. The appellant-wife appeared and filed written
statement on 14.01.2015 wherein she denied all allegations of
cruelty by her and claimed that she always fulfilled her marital
obligations, while the respondent-husband behaved with cruelty
and sought divorce to facilitate his remarriage. It is stated that
prior to their marriage, the respondent-husband compelled her
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
father to execute a sale deed in his favour. As such, the father of
the appellant-wife, namely, Shashi Kumar Sinha executed
registered sale deed on 12.03.2010 before their marriage in the
name of the appellant-wife and respondent-husband. After
solemnization of their marriage on 06.06.2010, the respondent-
husband and his family members subjected her to cruelty by
different ways for more dowry. Ultimately, she lodged the
dowry torture case. It is further stated that the respondent-
husband was having an illicit relationship with one Rajani
Kumari, whom he falsely projected as a relative. Also, she
denied allegation with respect to presence of Prashant Kumar in
her bedroom in absence of the respondent-husband on
10.09.2010. Moreover, she stated that she never left her
matrimonial house on 15.12.2010, rather it was the respondent-
husband who ousted her from the matrimonial home on
06.03.2011 and falsely alleged her departure. Despite suffering
mental and physical abuse, she asserted her willingness to
continue her conjugal relationship and opposed the divorce
petition as false, fabricated and motivated by greed.
5. On the basis of pleading and submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned Family Court
framed following issues:-
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?
(ii) Has the petitioner got cause of action to file the
case?
(iii) Whether O.P. treated cruelty with petitioner?
(iv) Whether O.P. deserted the petitioner without
any just and reasonable cause?
(v) Whether petitioner is entitled to get decree of
divorce as prayed for ?
6. On behalf of respondent-husband four witnesses
including himself were examined in support of his case. A.W.-1
Sanjay Kumar who is co-tenant, deposed that appellant-wife
used to frequently misbehave with the respondent-husband and
often pressurize him to live at her parental home. She left her
matrimonial house without consent of her husband and there
were no marital relationship between both the parties for over
four years. Also, the criminal case filed by the appellant-wife
was false and and intended to harass. A.W. -2, Manoj Kumar
supported the case of the respondent-husband deposing that the
appellant-wife refused to return even after panchayati dated
05.02.2011. A.W-3, Satish Kumar, who is the respondent
himself, deposed that the marriage was solemnized with the
appellant-wife on 06.06.2010, and at the time of marriage, she
was employed as a Block Teacher. He further stated that the
appellant-wife did not behave properly with his mother and
other family members after the marriage, while residing at her
matrimonial home. Moreover, it was stated that the appellant-
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
wife was reluctant to engage in physical cohabitation with him,
which caused mental cruelty. After she went to her naihar, the
appellant-wife was not willing to return to her matrimonial
home. He further stated that he took his wife to his Mama's
house, where she had an altercation with his maternal aunt
Mami. Thereafter, he rented a house in Mohalla Mishra Tola, but
she was not willing to live there and pressurized him to reside at
her naihar in Khabra. When he refused to live at his sasural, the
appellant-wife became annoyed. Furthermore, he deposed that
the appellant-wife had a special relationship with her brother-in-
law, Prashant Kumar. He used to visit their residence frequently,
and in the absence of the respondent-husband, she would return
late at night. Upon questioning, she would abuse him and create
ugly scenes, which amounted to cruelty. It was further stated
that the appellant-wife never took interest in household affairs
and would sometimes cook meals only for herself. She often
refrained from having meals with the respondent-husband,
despite his continuous efforts to adjust with her, but she did not
change her rude behaviour. It is further deposed that on
10.09.2010, he found the appellant-wife with her brother-in-law
inside his house under suspicious circumstances, and when he
objected, the appellant-wife reacted abusively. Despite
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
intervention by neighbors, her behavior remained aggressive.
On the eve of Vishwakarma Puja in 2010, appellant-wife's
father and relatives entered the house, used filthy language, and
the appellant-wife supported them instead of restraining their
conduct. Thereafter, she stopped communicating with the
petitioner, began living independently, and finally left the
matrimonial home on 15.12.2010 without his consent. Efforts at
reconciliation through a panchayati failed, as the appellant-wife
refused to return and even threatened to ruin the respondent-
husband life. The witness stated that due to her continued cruel
behavior, his mental peace was severely disturbed, affecting his
family members as well. The respondent-husband further stated
that ill behavior and cruelty by appellant-wife, including filing
of a false criminal case, which caused him mental agony and led
to filing the present divorce suit. In cross-examination, he
admitted receiving a sale deed from his father-in-law but denied
non-payment of consideration. He also admitted that an earlier
divorce case was dismissed and the present one is filed as per
court permission. Allegations of second marriage or illicit
relationship were categorically denied, and there was no
effective cross-examination on the alleged cruelty by the
appellant-wife, and A.W.- 4, Satyendra Kumar Rakesh, also
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
supported the case of the respondent-husband and deposed that
there is no chance of resumption of their matrimonial life. All
the witnesses affirmed that both the parties are issueless.
7. Moreover, respondent-husband has submitted six
documents for consideration, viz., photocopy of the order of the
Hon'ble Court dated 19.12.2013 passed in Misc. Appeal 275 of
2013 filed by applicant Satish Kumar against the order dated
11.03.2013 passed by the Family Court, Muzaffarpur in
Matrimonial Case no.185 of 2011, photocopy of the sale deed
dated 12.03.2010 executed by Shashi Kumar Sinha in favour of
Satish Kumar and Anisha Sinha, R.T.I. Report given by
Principal, Rajkiya Madhya Vidhalaya, Khabra, Muzaffarpur on
09.04.2012 regarding working of Anisha Sinha in census work
from 17.05.2010 to 28.06.2010, photocopy of the order of the
Hon'ble Court dated 28.06.2017 passed in Cri.Misc.No.54168 of
2013 preferred by Anamika Kumari @ Nisha Kumari, Sanjeev
Kumar Mishra, Rupam Kumari @ Rajani Kumari against
Anisha Sinha regarding the Complaint Case No.2957 of 2012
filed by Nisha Sinha in which quashing order is passed by the
Hon'ble Court, photocopy of the order sheet of dated 15.06.2011
to 11.03.2013 of the Family Court, Muzaffarpur passed in
Matrimonial Case No. 185 of 2011, and photocopy of the
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
registration of Vehicle No. BR-06T-9405 Alto LXI in the name
of Satish Kumar.
8. On the other hand, appellant-wife examined
altogether five witnesses including herself viz., O.P.W.-1 is
Kapileshwar Prasad Singh, O.P.W. -2 is Ram Shankar Thakur,
O.P.W.-3 is Anisha Sinha @ Anisha @ Anisha Kumari Sinha,
the appellant-wife herself, O.P.W.- 4 is Anand Kishore Pandey,
and O.P.W.-5 is Shashi Kumar Sinha, the father of the appellant-
wife. Furthermore, three documentary evidence, viz., C.C. of
order-sheet dated 04.08.2012 in the Court of CJM, Muzaffarpur
passed in Kazimohammadpur P.S. Case No. 174/2011 is marked
as Ext.A, F.I.R. and Charge Sheet of Kazimohammadpur P.S.
Case No.174 of 2011 is marked as Ext.A/1 and C.C. of sale
deed dated 12.03.2010 executed by Shashi Kumar Singh in
favour of Satish Kumar and Anisha Sinha is marked as Ext.B,
were exhibited on behalf of the appellant-wife. She has also
submitted C.C. of order dated 11.03.2013 of the Family Court,
Muzaffarpur passed in Matrimonial case 185/2011 filed by
Satish Kumar against Anisha Sinha for consideration.
9. Opposite party no.3-Anisha Sinha, the appellant-
wife in her deposition deposed that she was subjected to torture
by various means in her matrimonial house and she had seen the
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
respondent-husband in objectionable position with one Rajni
Kumari. When her husband and his family members did not
change their attitude, she filed F.I.R. against them for dowry
torture. She further stated that there was no physical relationship
with her husband who was non-cooperative. She denied the
allegations of torture by her and also denied close relationship
with her brother-in-law. She denied that any Panchayati was
held on 05.02.2011. In her cross-examination she admitted that
she never filed any case for restitution of conjugal rights. O.P.
No.5, Shashi Kumar Sinha, who is father of the appellant-wife
supported the case of appellant and deposed that the respondent-
husband used to misbehave with the appellant-wife and the
respondent-husband is a characterless person. O.P.W.-1
Kapileshwar Prasad Singh, O.P.W.2 Ram Shankar Thakur and
O.P.W.-4 Anand Kishore Pandey also supported the version of
appellant-wife that the respondent-husband had demanded
Scorpio from the father of the appellant-wife at the time of
marriage and had also taken a land from the father of the
appellant-wife vide registered sale deed dated 12.03.2010.
10. In view of facts and circumstances and
materials available on record learned Family Court,
Muzaffarpur held that both the parties, who are teachers, are
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
living separately since 15.12.2010 and there has been no
cohabitation between them. Also, the appellant-wife had
repeatedly accused the respondent-husband of being
characterless without any substantive proof. Accordingly, the act
of the wife amounts to cruelty. There is continuous separation
for a long period which shows that their matrimonial bond is
beyond repair. Their marriage has become fiction though
supported by a legal tie. The respondent-husband proved his
case of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The marriage between
the parties is accordingly dissolved and the suit has been
decreed vide impugned judgment/order dated 22.11.2018 and
decree dated 06.12.2018.
11. Learned Counsel for the appellant-wife
submitted that dowry was demanded by the respondent-husband
and his family members, consequently, imparting mental and
physical torture which forced her to file dowry torture case
against them. Learned Family Court has erred while
appreciating the evidence to prove the allegation of cruelty
against the appellant-wife. It is further submitted that the
learned Family Court failed to consider the fact that the
respondent-husband made false allegation of illicit relationship
with her brother-in-law, which was not proved by the
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
respondent-husband through witnesses examined. The
appellant-wife is ready to live with the respondent-husband as
she feels that marriage is a pious relationship between husband
and wife, and inspite of her efforts the respondent-husband has
filed divorce suit with ulterior motive. Moreover, it is submitted
that the respondent-husband has solemnized second marriage
during the pendency of the instant appeal. Therefore, the
impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside.
12. Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of the
respondent-husband submitted that learned Family Court has
rightly decreed divorce on ground of cruelty and hence no
interference is required by this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted
that both the parties are living separately since last 15 years and
she has been hardly interested to lead their conjugal
relationship. Since inception of their marriage, the appellant-
wife displayed a persistent unwillingness to consummate the
marriage or to fulfill the essential obligations arising therefrom.
It is further submitted that the appellant-wife wants to vex the
respondent-husband as she has persistently alleged him of being
characterless causing immense mental cruelty. Moreover, it is
submitted that he has solemnized his second marriage after the
statutory period of limitation for filing the instant appeal.
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
13. In view of the rival contentions, the point for
determination in this appeal is "whether the learned Family
Court has rightly decreed divorce to the respondent-husband on
ground of cruelty by the appellant-wife?"
14. It appears from perusal of the record that the
relationship between the parties has been severely strained,
marked by persistent discord. The appellant-wife cohabited with
the respondent-husband only for few months i.e. from
06.06.2010 to 15.12.2010, during which the relationship
remained devoid of cordiality and harmony, lacking any
meaningful marital companionship, which continued to
deteriorate. Notably, the parties shared a very brief period of
cohabitation during the subsistence of their marriage. No child
was born out of their wedlock and as of now they are living
separately since last 15 years. Both sides have made serious
allegations against each other and have been entangled in
ongoing litigation since their separation. There is no indication
of any willingness from either party to resume cohabitation or
restore the matrimonial bond, as they have remained apart since
15.12.2010. The prolonged separation, the serious nature of
allegations, continued legal battles, and mutual lack of interest
in reconciliation clearly establish that the marriage has
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
irretrievably broken down.
15. The settled position of mental cruelty to
constitute a ground for dissolution of marriage must be of such a
nature that it becomes impossible for the aggrieved spouse to
continue in the matrimonial relationship. In context thereto, in
the case of Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar
reported in (2021) 3 SCC 742 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that:
"10. For considering
dissolution of marriage at the instance of a
spouse who allege mental cruelty, the result
of such mental cruelty must be such that it is
not possible to continue with the
matrimonial relationship. In other words, the
wronged party cannot be expected to
condone such conduct and continue to live
with his/her spouse. The degree of tolerance
will vary from one couple to another and the
Court will have to bear in mind the
background, the level of education and also
the status of the parties, in order to
determine whether the cruelty alleged is
sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage,
at the instance of the wronged party. In
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, this Court gave
illustrative cases where inference of mental
cruelty could be drawn even while
emphasizing that no uniform standard can
be laid down and each case will have to be
decided on its own facts."
16. It is pertinent to note that where the parties
have remained in continuous separation over a long period, it
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
can reasonably be inferred that the matrimonial relationship has
broken down irretrievably. Though a legal tie may technically
subsist, the essence of marriage i.e., companionship, mutual
respect, and emotional connection becomes illusory. In such
circumstances, persisting with the legal bond may not uphold
the sanctity of marriage but rather disregard the lived realities
and emotional well-being of the individuals involved.
Therefore, prolonging such relationship may, in fact, amount to
cruelty.
17. The Apex Court in the case of Rajib Kumar
Roy v. Sushmita Saha reported in (2023) 17 SCC 441
observed that:
"8. Continued bitterness, dead emotions and
long separation, in the given facts and
circumstances of a case can be construed as
a case of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage which is also a facet of
cruelty....."
18. On point of cruelty, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita reported in (2023) 17 SCC 433
observed in paragraph no.26 that :
"26. This Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya
Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 though did
ultimately give certain illustrations of
mental cruelty. Some of these are as follows:
101. No uniform standard can ever be laid
down for guidance, yet we deem it
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
appropriate to enumerate some instances of
human behaviour which may be relevant in
dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty".
The instances indicated in the succeeding
paragraphs are only illustrative and not
exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete
matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental
pain, agony and suffering as would not make
possible for the parties to live with each
other could come within the broad
parameters of mental cruelty.
****** ****** ******
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to
have intercourse for considerable period
without there being any physical incapacity
or valid reason may amount to mental
cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either
husband or wife after marriage not to have
child from the marriage may amount to
cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long
period of continuous separation, it may
fairly be concluded that the matrimonial
bond is beyond repair. The marriage
becomes a fiction though supported by a
legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the
law in such cases, does not serve the
sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it
shows scant regard for the feelings and
emotions of the parties. In such like
situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."
(emphasis supplied)
19. In the present case, the parties shared only a
brief period of cohabitation during the subsistence of their
marriage. No child was born out of the wedlock, and they have
been living separately for the past 15 years. The prolonged
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
separation indicates that the very foundation of the marriage has
eroded, rendering the matrimonial bond irretrievably broken.
Additionally, the mutual allegations and counter-allegations
concerning each other's character further establish that the
relationship has been marred by mental cruelty, leaving no
scope for reconciliation.
20. On proper consideration of cumulative facts
and circumstances of this case, in our view, the learned Family
Court has rightly decreed divorce in favour of the respondent-
husband as the impugned judgment is based on carefully
watching the demeanour of the parties and their respective
witnesses and the ratio and spirit of the precedents set-forth.
Consequently, the impugned judgment/order dated 22.11.2018
and decree dated 06.12.2018 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Matrimonial Case No. 14
of 2014 need no interference by this Court.
21. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
provides for the grant of permanent alimony at the time of
passing a decree or any time thereafter. Its primary objective is
to ensure the dependent spouse is not left without support after
dissolution of marriage and to protect their interests. It is
however, intended not to penalize the other spouse. Considering
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, Kiran
Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 1724 and Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Kain
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678 to clarify the position
of law with regard to determination of permanent alimony.
22. In this case, it is admitted facts that the
marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.06.2010 as
per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Admittedly, both the parties are
living separately for the past 15 years and prolonged separation
indicates that the very foundation of the marriage has
irretrievably broken down, and they are issueless. Both the
parties are employed as teacher.
23. As per the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed
in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Rajnesh v Neha (supra) it appears that the respondent-
husband, aged 44 years, holds a post-graduate degree in
commerce along with a B.Ed., and is employed as a zila
parishad teacher earning a monthly salary of Rs. 46,256/-. He
also receives Rs. 14,500/- per month from other sources and Rs.
1,854/- as interest from a recurring deposit. He resides in his
own house with his second wife and two sons, incurring
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
monthly household expenses of Rs. 25,000/-. His assets include
a 1144 sq. ft. self-acquired property, a share in 4 kattha of
ancestral land, and 4 decimals of jointly owned vacant land in
Hajipur. He has liabilities including a housing loan of Rs.
27,60,000/- with an EMI of Rs. 24,296/-, an accommodation
loan of Rs. 1,75,000/-, and monthly expenses of Rs. 10,565/- on
premiums, deposits, and education. The appellant-wife, also
aged 44, holds a Bachelor of Arts degree and is employed as a
Block Teacher with a monthly income of Rs. 47,872/-. She is
currently residing at her parental home and bears monthly
expenses of Rs. 25,000/-. She owns 4 decimals of self-acquired
land. However, as per the respondent-husband affidavit, she also
holds a share in her ancestral house situated on 5 kattha of land
and 22 kattha of ancestral agricultural land.
24. It appears from the order dated 19.11.2024 of
this case that the respondent-husband proposed and expressed
his willingness to give his share of one of the properties which
stands in the joint name of the appellant-wife and the
respondent-husband, which has a value of a sum of Rs.16-17
lakhs, as permanent alimony in the form of one-time settlement.
25. Admittedly, both the parties are employed as
teacher having monthly salary of more than Rs.46,000/- and
Patna High Court MA No.250 of 2019 dt.30-04-2025
both are financially not dependent on each other. They have no
issue from their marriage tie. They lived together only for few
months and are residing separately since 15.12.2010. In view
whereof, the voluntary proposal of respondent-husband for
relinquishment of his right in the joint purchased property in
their name is just and fair.
26. In view thereof, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court directs the respondent-
husband to relinquish his right in the aforesaid joint property
within four months from the date of this judgment
27. This Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed
with aforesaid directions.
28. 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)
Ritik/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 11.02.2025
Uploading Date 30.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
