IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MISC. APPEAL No.381 of 2009 INDRAJIT KUMAR @ INDRAJEET KUMAR SON OF LATE RAJ NARAIN KUAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIGHI KALA TOWN HAJIPUR P.S. HAJIPUR, DISTIRCT VAISHALI. Versus 1. MANJU SINGH WIFE OF INDRAJIT KUMAR DAUGHTER OF YOGENDRA PRASAD, REIDENT OF VILLAGE ARIJPUR, P.O. RAJLA CHATTI, DISTIRCT MUZAFFARPUR AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA & TOWN DHOBRI, P.S. & DISTRICT DHOBRI, ASSAM. 2. PINKU KUMAR SON OF LATE SACHCHIDANAND SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SURSAND, P.O. & P.S. SURSAND DISTRICT SITAMARHI. ----------- For the appellant :- M/S. Mahesh Narayan Parbat & Nutan Sahay For Respondent no. 1 :- Mrs. Bela Singh ------- 6 11/01/2010 Though this matter was listed for orders, yet on consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. In this appeal the judgment of the learned Family Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur dated 9.6.2009 in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case no. 10 of 1998 is called in question. Shorn of un-necessary details, the facts which are requisite to be exposited for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant-husband filed an application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for - 2 - grant of divorce on many a ground. Be it noted, the learned Family Judge has granted divorce. As far as wife is concerned, she has not preferred any appeal and, therefore, we are not required to go into the justifiability of the grant of decree for divorce. What is required to be adverted to is the permanent alimony that has been granted by the court is just and proper. In view of the aforesaid, it is appropriate to re-produce paragraphs 35 and 36 of the order of the learned Family Judge which runs as follows :- “35. The applicant is directed to make payment of lump sum amount of Rs.5 lacs, as ordered by this court within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order and start making payment of Rs.5000/- per month for maintenance of Manju Singh (O.P. No. 1) and her daughter, from the date of passing of this order itself. The aforesaid monthly amount of maintenance of Rs.5000/-, must be paid by the applicant to Manju Devi (O.P. No. 1) by last day of every month and the aforesaid amount shall be deposited in the account of O.P. no. 1 Manju Singh after deducting the amount from the salary of the applicant. The decree of divorce shall become effective after making aforesaid payment by applicant to O.P. No. 1. 36. In the event of not making payment of aforesaid amount to the O.P. No. 1 by applicant, the decree of divorce will not become effective. The applicant in that event, will be liable to make payment of Rs.10,000/- per month, as maintenance to the O.P. No. 1 Manju Devi (wife) till she is alive and Rs.5000/- for - 3 - maintenance of her daughter (total 15,000/-) till she gets married in terms of the provision of section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, till any modification is made by this court in the aforesaid order in accordance with law. The aforesaid amount of Rs.15,000/- per month would be deducted from salary of the applicant and deposited in the S.B. Account of O.P. no. 1 Manju Singh by the Employer (Gramin Bank). The wife Manju Singh (O.P. no. 1) would furnish details of her S.B. Account in which she desires to get the aforesaid amount of permanent alimony deposited by the Employer (Bank of the applicant.)” It is also worth noting that the Family Judge has imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/-. Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no justification or warrant by the learned Family Judge to grant such exorbitant amount as alimony. It is urged by him that the learned Family Court has fallen into grave error by directing a lump sum amount as well as monthly maintenance. He has also criticized the imposition of costs. Mrs. Bela Singh, learned counsel for the wife respondent submitted that she is a handicapped person and the husband is Branch Manager in Kshetriya Gramin Bank and, therefore, the order passed by the - 4 - learned Family Judge is absolutely correct and does not deserve to be interfered with by this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to modify the order impugned on the following terms:- (a) The lump sum amount that has been awarded by the Family Court in favour of the wife is enhanced to rupees six lacs and fifty thousand. The appellant-husband shall pay a sum of rupees three lacs either by way of Banker’s cheque or Bank draft in the name of his wife by 31.03.2010, rupees two lacs shall be paid by end of July, 2010 and rupees one lac fifty thousand by 15th of January, 2011. (b) The husband shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month commencing 1st February, 2010 till 31st March, 2010; Rs.3000/- per month commencing 1st April, 2010 till 31st July, 2010; and Rs.2000/- per month commencing 1st August, 2010 till 31st January, 2011 payable by the 7th of each succeeding month. (c ) Direction to pay Rs.5000/- per month as monthly maintenance and the cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed - 5 - by the learned Family Judge are set aside. With the above modification in the order of the learned Family Judge, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. AMIN (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J)