The Patna High Court clarified that the duration of the marriage, i.e., how long the marriage existed, is a relevant factor in determining the quantum of permanent alimony. Since marriages that last more than 10 years are entitled to be granted a lifetime alimony, the Court directed the appellant-husband to pay Rs. 90 lacs as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife within six months, failing which the amount would carry 6% simple interest per annum.
Finding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, the Court held that forcing a deserted husband and wife to continue their matrimonial relationship would be an abuse of the process of law, and accordingly, dissolved the marriage.
The Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice S. B. Pd. Singh observed that 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 man-made misfortune.
The Bench reiterated 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 that she can live in reasonable comfort, considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party.
The Bench found that the appellant is working as a Master in the Merchant Navy and getting Rs. 5 to 6 lacs per month, and apart from the salary, the appellant also possesses ancestral properties. Since the appellant has still not remarried and is solely dependent on her old-aged parents, and has no other source of income, the Bench granted permanent alimony of Rs. 90 lacs.
Briefly, in this case, since no child was born after solemnization and consummation of marriage, the appellant-husband, employed in the Merchant Navy, alleged that the respondent-wife displayed abusive behaviour and refused cohabitation. Despite several reconciliatory efforts, the respondent allegedly refused to return. As there was no conjugal relationship, the appellant, alleging mental agony, filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and desertion. This was opposed by the respondent, alleging mental cruelty and an extramarital relationship. The matter reached trial, where the Family Court dismissed the divorce petition, finding that cruelty and desertion were not proved.
Appearances:
Advocates Sriram Krishna and Prabhat Kumar Singh, for the Appellant
Advocates Vivek Prasad and Y. Madhavi, for the Respondent