'Duty To Ensure Wife Doesn't Live In Penury': Patna High Court Dissolves Marriage, Orders Husband To Pay ₹90 Lakhs Permanent Alimony

A Bench of Chief Justice PB Bajanthri and Justice SB PD Singh added that it is the duty of the Court to see that the wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in 'penury'.

With these remarks, the Court set aside the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur, which had earlier dismissed the husband's divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Briefly put, the couple married in December 2010 but their relationship turned sour soon after. According to the husband, his wife's behaviour was hostile from the beginning.

He claimed that she left the matrimonial home within two months of the marriage and never returned despite repeated requests. Thus, he argued that the matrimonial relation has already irretrievably broken down and there is no hope of restoration of their conjugal life.

The wife, on the other hand, alleged that she was subjected to "the worst type of cruelty" by her in-laws in the absence of her husband and was ultimately driven out of the house in December 2011.

She claimed that her father was forced to meet dowry demands and even sold a flat booked in her name to appease the in-laws.

She further accused her husband, now Captain of the ship, of not taking care of her and not willing to keep her with himself as he has developed an extra marital affair.

She also asserted that her husband's income is about one crore per annum but he is hardly taking interest to financially support her and that she is totally dependent upon her old aged parents.

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court rejected appellant-husband's plea for divorce in 2018 as it noted that no case of cruelty and desertion could be established.

Thus, the husband approached the High Court wherein he admitted of paying Rs. 10,000/- per month to her as maintenance.

During the pendency of the case the Husband proposed to give a permanent alimony of Rs. 50 lakhs to his wife, which she refused. She demanded Rs. 90 Lakhs and a residential accommodation so as to agree for a mutual divorce.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that the marriage was irretrievably broken and forcing them to continue the matrimonial relationship will be an abuse of the process of law. Thus, it dissolved their marriage, 

However, on the issue of permanent alimony, the Bench referred to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which empowers the Court to grant maintenance having regard to the income and property of both parties, their conduct and other relevant circumstances.

Referring to the Supreme Court's rulings in Rajnesh v. Neha, Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish PramodPatel and Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, the High Court reiterated that there is “no fixed formula” for determining permanent maintenance.

The quantum, it said, must depend on the income of both parties, conduct during the marriage, social and financial status, the standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home and the financial capacity of the husband.

The duration of marriage, the Court added, is also relevant in determining alimony. It added that generally, marriages that last more than 10 years are entitled to be granted lifetime alimony.

Furthermore, deciding the quantum, the Bench took note of the husband's income of ₹5-6 lakh per month as a Master in the Merchant Navy and his possession of ancestral properties.

The wife, on the other hand, the bench noted, had no independent source of income and continued to depend on her elderly parents while receiving ₹10,000 per month as maintenance under the Family Court's earlier order.

"…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", the bench remarked.

Thus, considering the overall circumstances, the Bench directed the husband to pay ₹90 lakh to the wife within six months as permanent alimony. In case of default, the amount will carry simple interest at 6% per annum.

In its order, the Court also clarified that the wife remains free to file an independent application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for further determination of permanent alimony, since the Court does not become functus officio after passing a decree of divorce.