Kumari Neelam Devi vs Sri Satish Kumar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4111 Patna

Patna High Court

Kumari Neelam Devi vs Sri Satish Kumar on 14 October, 2025

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Miscellaneous Appeal No.248 of 2010
======================================================
Kumari Neelam Devi, wife of Sri Satish Kumar, resident of Village and Police
Station-Karpi, District-Arwal, at present residing at Village-Mungila, Police
Station-Paliganj, District-Patna
                                                             ... ... Appellant/s
                                    Versus

Satish Kumar, son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh, resident of Village and Police
Station-Karpi, District-Arwal

                                          ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s    :       Mr. Satyanand Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s   :       Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                   And
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
               CAV JUDGMENT
    (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH)

Date : 14-10-2025

             Heard the parties.

             2. The appellant-wife (Kumari Neelam Devi) has

 come up in this appeal against judgment and decree dated

 23.02.2010

passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family

Court, Jehanabad in Matrimonial Case No. 21 of 2009,

whereby the petition filed by the respondent-husband

(Satish Kumar) under Sections 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the 1955 Act') seeking

dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has been

allowed and divorce stands granted. However, an amount of

Rs. 2500/- per month was directed to be paid by the Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

respondent-husband to the appellant-wife for maintenance

of her children.

3. Succinctly, the marriage of appellant- Kumari

Neelam Devi was solemnized with respondent-Satish

Kumar in the year 1996 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

The marriage was duly consummated; and one son and one

daughter was born out of the wedlock. Third child had died

in appellant's womb.

4. The pleaded case of the respondent-husband in

his petition filed before the Family Court is that the

marriage of the respondent-husband with the appellant-wife

was solemnized in the year 1996. The marriage was

consummated and out of the wedlock, one female-child and

one male-child were born. The respondent-husband was

having a joint family consisting old parents and a brother

who was in service and living at Rurkhi. The respondent-

husband was working as a Constable at Ranchi and he

insisted his wife (appellant) to live with him but she was

adamant to live at her parents' house. The respondent-

husband claims that his wife (appellant) is a woman of

questionable character and she herself does not want to live Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

with him and she deserted the respondent-husband since

2006. The respondent-husband made every efforts to bring

the appellant-wife back to her matrimonial house but all his

efforts went in vein. Ultimately, finding no other option, the

respondent-husband has filed the present divorce petition

seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.

5. In response to the notices/summons issued to

the appellant-wife, she has appeared and filed her written

statement. In her written statement, the appellant-wife has

denied all the allegations as levelled by the respondent-

husband. She denied this fact that she does not want to live

with her husband at his place of posting or she does not

want to live with his parents. Though she admits to have

filed a criminal case against the respondent-husband and

other in-laws family members. The appellant-wife during

hearing of the Maintenance Case No. 11 of 2009 has

suspected that respondent-husband might have performed

second marriage and he may oust the appellant-wife and her

children from her matrimonial house. The appellant-wife

has also claimed for a maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per

month for herself and the maintenance of her two children Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

as she has been residing at her parents' house and her

parents have also no source of income to garnish the needs

and requirements of the appellant and her children.

6. In Maintenance Case No. 11 of 2009, the

respondent-husband has filed his show-cause claiming that

the present maintenance case was filed after filing of the

divorce petition. The respondent further submitted that

appellant herself does not want to live with the respondent

as she has illicit relationship with a male member of her

family relation. The respondent-husband is ready to bear the

expenses incurred on the education of his children, if they

are admitted in the residential school at Jehanabad, Gaya

and Patna. The respondent-husband is in government

service and without divorcing his first wife, he will not

perform second marriage.

7. The respondent-husband has produced five

witnesses in order to prove his case. They are P.W. 1 Satish

Kumar (appellant himself), P.W. 2 Narayan Singh, P.W. 3

Bipin Kumar, P.W. 4 Ram Pravesh Singh and P.W. 5

Dhananjay Kumar.

8. The respondent-husband has also brought on Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

record some documentary evidence which are:-

Ext-1 List of family members Ext-1/A Medical Certificate of mental treatment at P.M.C.H Ext. 1/B Reservation of cancellation ticket Ext. 1/C Photocopy of reservation ticket Ext. 1/D Compromise petition between Rampravesh Sharma and Baijnath Sharma dated 22.11.2008 Ext. 1/E Cancellation of reservation ticket Ext. 1/F Photocopy of reservation ticket Ext-1/G The application of form of T.H. Nursery School .

9. The appellant-wife has also examined four

witnesses in support of her case who are O.P.W 1 Baijnath

Sharma, O.P.W. 2 Rabindra Sharma, O.P.W. 3 Nityanand

Sharma and O.P. No. 4 Kumari Neelam Devi (appellant

herself).

10. The appellant-wife has not produced and

exhibited any document in support of her case.

11. In view of facts and circumstances and Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

materials available on record, learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Jehanabad allowed the divorce petition and

dissolved the marriage of the respondent-husband with the

appellant-wife by a decree of divorce. The appellant-wife,

aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Family Court

has filed the instant appeal before this Court.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife submits

that the learned Family Court has erred in law and facts in

allowing the divorce petition filed by the respondent-

husband. Learned counsel has further submitted that the

divorce petition has wrongly been allowed on the ground of

cruelty and desertion without hearing her averments. It is

further submitted that the Family Court has wrongly

concluded that the appellant had deserted the respondent-

husband, whereas it was the respondent, who had deserted

her and now he has remarried. The appellant-wife is

dependent on her parents who are old aged persons and

does not have any source of income. The daughter of the

appellant is of marriageable age and she has to spent a

handsome money on her marriage. The respondent-husband

is paying a meager amount of Rs. 4000/- per month as Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

maintenance to both her children. The appellant-wife is still

unmarried, however, respondent-husband has remarried

with another girl. It is therefore contended that the findings

returned by the Family Court are not sustainable in the eyes

of law.

13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

respondent-husband that after marriage, the appellant-wife

lived with the respondent-husband for sometimes and

during this period two children were born out of the

wedlock. Thereafter, she started using tactics to go to her

parents' house without any reasonable cause. The

respondent-husband made all his efforts to bring the

appellant-wife back to her matrimonial house but all his

efforts went in vein. Subsequently, the respondent came to

know that appellant was having illicit relationship with

another person of her family relation and this was the

reason she did not want to live at her matrimonial house or

at the place of posting of the respondent. The respondent-

husband has further submitted that when the pressure was

mounted upon the appellant-wife to lead conjugal live with

the respondent-husband, she filed a criminal case against Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

the respondent and other in-laws family members levelling

false and frivolous allegation of torture and assault for

demand of dowry. The respondent-husband, therefore, filed

the present divorce petition seeking dissolution of marriage

which was allowed by the learned Family Court. The

respondent further asserted that after decree of divorce, he

has performed second marriage.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and perused the paper-book as well as the impugned

judgment.

15. The following question arises for consideration

before this Court:

"Whether the decree for divorce granted on the

grounds of cruelty and desertion by the Family Court,

requires interference?"

16. Further, the concept of cruelty within the

meaning of Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act

has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

"Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar",

(2021) 2 RCR (Civil) 289, by observing as under: -

"10. For considering dissolution Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

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..."

17. In "Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh", (2007) 4

SCC 511, Hon'ble Supreme 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.

"85. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

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.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind.

The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few Isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to 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 Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

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..."

18. In "Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi", (2008)

10 SCC 497, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering

the scope of interference by first appellate court, observed

as under:-

"24. It is no doubt true that the High Court was exercising power as first appellate court and hence it was open to the Court to enter into not only questions of law but questions of fact as well. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of suit. An appeal thus is a re-hearing of the main Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

matter and the appellate court can re- appraise, re-appreciate and review the entire evidence "oral as well as documentary" and can come to its own conclusion.

25. At the same time, however, the appellate court is expected, nay bound, to bear in mind a finding recorded by the trial court on oral evidence. It should not forget that the trial court had an advantage and opportunity of seeing the demeanour of witnesses and, hence, the trial court's conclusions should not normally be disturbed. No doubt, the appellate court possesses the same powers as that of the original court, but they have to be exercised with proper care, caution and circumspection. When a finding of fact has been recorded by the trial court mainly on appreciation of oral evidence, it should not be lightly disturbed unless the approach of the trial court in appraisal of evidence is erroneous, contrary to well-established principles of law or unreasonable..."

19. On the anvil of the aforesaid principle of

Hon'ble Apex Court when we examine the present case in

the light of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, it Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

becomes clear that appellant and respondent are living

separately for about 20 years. The appellant-wife is residing

along with both of her children whereas the respondent-

husband has re-married and living along with his wife and

three children. There is long separation between the parties

and the matrimonial bond is virtually beyond repair and in

this circumstance, if divorce is not granted, it will not serve

the sanctity of marriage.

20. Now, it is relevant to mention para 2 of our

previous order dated 22.04.2025 which is extracted

hereunder:-

"Learned counsel for the respective parties, on instruction, submitted that parties are prepared for amicable settlement. To that effect, they are hereby directed to prepare deed of settlement and place it on record on the next date of hearing. "

21. In view of forgoing discussion, we conclude

that both the parties are not longer interested to continue the

matrimonial relationship with each other and both are ready

for dissolution of marriage.

Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

22. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated

23.02.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family

Court, Jehanabad in Matrimonial Case No. 21 of 2009,

allowing dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, is

hereby upheld.

23. Before we part with this order, it is apposite to

take notice here that while granting the decree of divorce,

the learned Family court has not granted anything to the

appellant-wife towards Permanent Alimony. Here it is

useful to refer to Section 25 of the 1955 Act, which reads

thus:

"Section 25. Permanent alimony and maintenance: (1) Any Court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the appellant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant (the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case), it may seem to the Court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent."

24. 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.

25. 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 Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

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 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."

26. The Hon'ble Apex Court, taking note of

Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) and Kiran Jyot Maini (supra), in Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

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."

27. It is pertinent to mention here that duration of

the marriage i.e., how long the marriage existed is also a Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

relevant 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)

28. 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 Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

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)

29. Section 25 of the 1955 Act itself envisages that

the wife can initiate proceedings for grant of permanent

alimony even after the decree of divorce. Therefore, the

court does not become functus officio with the passing of

the decree and continues to have jurisdiction to award

alimony even thereafter.

30. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances

and to do justice to the parties, we are of the considered

view that while keeping it open to the appellant-wife to Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

institute her claim for grant of permanent alimony before

the court of competent jurisdiction, we deem it appropriate

to grant some amount towards Interim permanent alimony

subject to any final decision to be taken by the concerned

court on an application to be filed under section 25 of the

1955 Act by the appellant-wife.

31. Be it stated, while granting permanent alimony,

no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be

mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of

the parties, their respective social needs, the financial

capacity of the husband and other obligations. In "Vinny

Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar", (2011) 13 SCC 112:

(2011) 3 RCR (Civil) 900: 2011 (4) Recent Apex Judgments

(R.A.J.) 357, while dealing with the concept of permanent

alimony, this Court has observed that while granting

permanent alimony, the Court is required to take note of the

fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife

should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort

considering her status and the mode of life she was used to

be when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the

amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

condition of the other party.

32. Be that as it may, it is the duty of the Court to

see that the wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in

penury. The living need not be luxurious but simultaneously

she should not be left to live in discomfort. The Court has to

act with pragmatic sensibility to such an issue so that the

wife does not meet any kind of man-made misfortune.

33. This Court finds that respondent-husband was

serving as a Constable and thereafter as a Block

Development Officer. It is admitted fact that appellant-wife

has been living separately from her husband for a long

period of time and both her children are living with her

which shows her solidarity with her own children. The

appellant-wife has not performed second marriage. Both of

her children are more than 20 years of age and we find it

difficult to understand how she could maintain her children

with a meager amount of Rs. 2500/- per month as interim

maintenance which was awarded to the children's

maintenance. The pain and grief she meted out during this

period is easily understandable. The appellant has no other

source of income and she is getting a maintenance amount Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

of Rs. 4,000/- per month as awarded by the Family Court in

Maintenance Case No. 11 of 2009. On the other hand, the

respondent-husband has re-married and is leading a

conjugal life with her second wife.

34. This Court, while hearing the present petition

has observed in para 2, 3, and 5 of the order dated

12.11.2024 which reads as under :-

"2. The present appeal is of the year 2010. Respondent was in service as a Constable, thereafter, he was selected and appointed to the Class II post (BDO). He has been removed from service on certain alleged allegations. Be that as it may, he is not maintaining his wife and children properly from the inception. Even though children are aged about twenty plus, irrespective of that it is learnt that he was paying a meager sum of Rs. 2,500 to 4,000/.

3. In order to show bona fide that respondent-Sri Satish Kumar's intention is to maintain the wife and children, for the time being, he is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to his wife-appellant Kumari Neelam Devi. In this regard the appellant is hereby directed to furnish bank Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

account details to the respondent or his counsel through her counsel within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, respondent-Sri Satish Kumar will remit the aforementioned amount in the appellant's bank account withn a period of two months.

5. In the meanwhile, the respondent is hereby directed to file assets and liabilities in the form of affidavit in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 read with Aditi @ Mithi Vs. Jitesh Sharma reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1451 so as to ascertain his capacity for permanent alimony to settle the score between the parties."

35. We have also observed in para 2, 3 and 4 of the

order dated 06.05.2025 which reads as under:-

" 2. Appellant Kumari Neelam Devi offered for permanent settlement for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (twenty lakh) for which respondent Satish Kumar offered a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (six lakh).

3. It is impracticable for settlement for the reasons that there is huge difference between the offer and counter offer. Hence, Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

matter is required to be adjudicated on merits.

4. The present Miscellaneous Appeal No. 248 of 2010 is one of the oldest Family Court matter. Therefore, we request the respective counsels to prepare and peruse the Family Court Record and address their argument on merits on the next date of hearing."

36. The appellant as well as the respondent have

filed their assets and liabilities by way of supplementary

affidavit, in pursuance to the direction of this Court.

37. Accordingly, after going through the entire

facts of this case, we deem it appropriate to grant an amount

of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) towards

Permanent Alimony to be paid by respondent-husband to

the appellant-wife. Let the said amount be paid by

respondent-husband to the appellant-wife within a period of

three months from today; failing which the said amount

shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum. The amount of

Rs. 5,00,000/-(Five Lakhs) paid by the respondent-husband

to show his bona fide during pendency of the present appeal Patna High Court MA No.248 of 2010 dt.14-10-2025

will be set off against the aforesaid amount.

38. Accordingly M.A. No. 248 of 2010 stands

disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to

costs.

39. Pending I.A(s), if any, stand disposed of.

( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

(P. B. Bajanthri, CJ)

Shageer/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                03/07/2025
Uploading Date          14/10/2025
Transmission Date       N/A