Patna High Court
Pankaj Kumar vs Sarita Sinha @ Savita Sinha on 15 February, 2025
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.209 of 2020
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar S/o Prem Kumar Kushwaha R/o House No. 26/10, Purani
Labour Colony, P.S. and District- Saharanpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Sarita Sinha @ Savita Sinha W/o Pankaj Kumar, D/o Laliteshwar Prasad
Sinha R/o Chhata Chowk, Kalambagh Road, near Aabkari Godown, P.S.-
Kazimohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Paswan, Advocate
Mr. Amar Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Deepshika, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar, 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 : 06.03.2025
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against
the part of the judgment and order dated 04.12.2019 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in
Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 142 of 2010 whereby and
whereunder the learned Court has allowed the petition and
marriage of the respondent with the appellant has been declared
dissolved under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs to the
respondent-wife as one time settlement amount.
3. The appellant has challenged the part of the
Patna High Court MA No.209 of 2020 dt. 06-03-2025
2/10
judgment wherein the Court has directed to make payment of Rs.
15 lakhs to the respondent-wife as one time settlement, i.e.
permanent alimony.
4. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage of
the appellant with respondent was solemnized on 23.02.2004
according to Hindu rites and rituals and they lived together for few
months but from the initial days of marriage life differences
cropped up and the couple lived apart. The respondent filed a
dowry torture case against the appellant and also filed a
maintenance case. The appellant filed divorce case being Original
Suit No. 1169 of 2006 before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.
Division), Saharanpur, U.P. which was transferred to the Family
Court, Muzaffarpur, vide order dated 16.03.2009 read with order
dated 29.03.2010 in transfer petition (c) No. 412 of 2007 by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said original suit was converted
into Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 142 of 2010. In the divorce
petition, appellant pleaded that he was subjected to numerous
malicious complaint by the respondent-wife. The appellant
remained in custody for about three months. Written statement was
not filed by the respondent, however, petition has been filed by her
by way of rejoinder stating that the entire ornaments, gifted items
were returned and Rs. 15 lakhs is to be paid as one time settlement
amount by the appellant to the respondent-wife and she had agreed
Patna High Court MA No.209 of 2020 dt. 06-03-2025
3/10
for divorce. The learned Trial Court on considering the entire
evidence on the record and considering that Opposite Party is
ready for divorce, subject to demand of Rs. 15 lakhs as one time
settlement amount and vide impugned judgment and order dated
04.12.2019
, allowed the petition and held as under (para-8):-
"8. Considering the entire
evidences from the record I find that the
O.P. is ready for divorce subject to
demand of Rs. 15 lacs as one time
settlement amount and return all the
gifted items including ornaments. While
she was in sasural, she was subjected to
torture by various means. I find that
both the parties are living separately
since after two months of marriage. It is
a long period which is spent by the
parties, there is no chance of
reconciliation or resettlement of the
marriage tie.
Hence, this court finds it
proper to dissolve the marriage tie in
between the parties subject to payment
of amount of compensation of Rs. 15
lacs to the O.P. wife by the applicant
husband. Applicant husband is directed
to pay Rs. 15 lacs to the O.P. as per
order within three months from the date
of this order and after paying the
amount of compensation to the O.P. by
the applicant, O/C is directed to prepare
decree of divorce accordingly."
5. Against the award of Rs. 15 lakhs as permanent
alimony this appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant.
6. The only question to be decided in this case is
Patna High Court MA No.209 of 2020 dt. 06-03-2025
"whether the grant of Rs. 15 lakhs payable by the appellant to the
respondent-wife as permanent alimony is justified or not?"
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant has been unemployed since long time and is living with
his parents in Saharanpur and having no source of income. He is
unable to make payment of the said amount.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife
submitted that since respondent has no source of income and the
appellant is liable to provide permanent alimony to her as decided
by the learned Trial Court which is just and proper, requires no
interference by this Court.
9. It appears from the record that during the
proceeding of this case the appellant in compliance of the order
dated 20th April, 2024 paid Rs. 7.50 lakhs to the respondent-wife
and also paid Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation. In Maintenance
Case No.92 of 2006, filed by the respondent-wife under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 15.12.2008, the appellant-husband
had been directed to pay a monthly sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees
Three Thousand Only) towards her maintenance. The respondent-
wife has admitted that appellant has paid Rs. 3 lakh to her against
the maintenance order in Maintenance Case No. 92 of 2006.
10. The parties were directed to file their affidavit of
Patna High Court MA No.209 of 2020 dt. 06-03-2025
assets and liabilities in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021)
2 SCC 324 read with Aditi @ Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma reported in
2003 SCC OnLine SC 1451 and Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678. The parties have filed
their affidavit of assets and liabilities.
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 the case of
Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), provided a comprehensive criterion and
list of factors to be looked into while deciding the question of
permanent alimony. This judgment lays down and elaborate and
comprehensive framework necessary for deciding the amount of
maintenance in all matrimonial proceedings, which 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.
Patna High Court MA No.209 of 2020 dt. 06-03-2025
13. The Hon'ble Supreme 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 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 the case of Pravin
Kumar Jain (supra) 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
Patna High Court MA No.209 of 2020 dt. 06-03-2025
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
liabilities.
These are only guidelines and not a
straitjacket rubric. These among such other
Patna High Court MA No.209 of 2020 dt. 06-03-2025
similar factors become relevant."
16. It is pertinent to mention here that duration of the
marriage is also a relevant factor 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."
(emphasis supplied)
17. In the present case, the parties cohabited for few
months only and they are living separately for about two decades.
It appears from affidavit of the respondent wife that she is a
graduate but she is unemployed having no independent income
and is solely dependent upon the alimony. She is residing in a out-
house of the residential house of her father having expenses of Rs
20,000/- per month. As per her affidavit, she remained two months
in matrimonial house having no knowledge of the property of
appellant. On the other hand it appears from the affidavit of
appellant husband that his educational qualification is B.Sc (H)
and is working in private job having earning of Rs.30,000/- per
month with liability to support his elderly parents. He asserted that
Patna High Court MA No.209 of 2020 dt. 06-03-2025
he has no assets except a Honda Activa two wheeler. He is residing
in a rented house. He also claimed that respondent wife is earning
Rs 30,000/- per month from tuition. There is no documentary
evidence on record with respect to income/assets of the parties.
The parties are aged about 44/45 years having no child born out of
their marriage.
18. 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 as the
impugned judgment is of year 2019.
19. Considering the material on record, the argument
advanced on behalf of parties, and the totality of facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that one-
time settlement amount determined by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Muzaffarpur is a fair and balanced decision
considering the standard of living enjoyed by the respondent-wife
during subsistence of the marriage, the prolonged period of
separation and the appellant financial capacity, the social and
financial status of the parties, their current employment as well as
future prospects, standards of living and their obligations, liability
and other expenses, one time settlement amount of Rs. 15 lakhs is
a just, reasonable, balanced and fair amount. This amount would
also cover all pending and future claims.
Patna High Court MA No.209 of 2020 dt. 06-03-2025
20. The appellant has already paid Rs. 7.50 lakhs to
the respondent-wife and he is required to pay the remaining
amount of Rs. 7.50 lakhs to the respondent-wife within a period of
four months from the date of this judgment.
21. This Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed with
aforesaid directions.
22. Pending I.A(s)., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
P. B. Bajanthri, J
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
rakhi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 27.01.2025
Uploading Date 07.03.2025
Transmission Date
