IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.465 of 2009 Kumari Nina @ Kumari Neena d/o Rameshwar Prasad, r/o quarters no.103, C.D.A. Colony, P.O. – B.V. College, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna … Plaintiff/Appellant Versus Kaushal Kumar Kaushal Kumar s/o Bharat Prasad, r/o At & P.O. Ghurghat, P.S. – Siswan, District – Siwan.. ……………….Defendant/Respondent With MA No.204 of 2009 Kaushal Kumar s/o Bharat Prasad, r/o At & P.O. Ghurghat, P.S. – Siswan, District – Siwan ………. Defendant/Appellant Vs. Kumari Nina @ Kumari Neena d/o Rameshwar Prasad, r/o quarters no.103, C.D.A. Colony, P.O. – B.V. College, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna …. Plaintiff/Respondent ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Vivek Prasad Mr. Vijoy Kumar Verma, Advocates (MA. No.465/09) Mr. M.N. Parbat, Advocate (MA. No.204/09) For the respondent: Mr. M.N. Parbat, Advocate (MA. No.465/09) Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate (MA. No.204/09) --- 5 12/1/2010 These appeals being interlinked and interconnected were heard analogously and disposed of by a common order. In MA. No.204 of 2009, the husband, namely, Kaushal Kumar has called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 7.3.2009 passed by the learned Family Judge, Patna in Matrimonial Case no.107 2 of 2002, whereby the learned Family Judge, while entertaining the application preferred by the wife respondent under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has granted Rs.2,00,000/- as permanent alimony. Be it noted, the husband is not aggrieved by the decree of divorce but is affected by fixation of quantum as regards permanent alimony. In MA. No.465 of 2009, the wife-appellant has challenged the same order questioning quantum that has been fixed towards permanent alimony on the foundation that the determination of such alimony is contrary to the material on record and more sum should have been awarded. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is crystal clear that as far as divorce is concerned neither party has been affected by the same and the singular issue that emerges for consideration is whether the amount that has been determined towards permanent alimony is just and proper. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to note that against the order of fixation of interim maintenance a 3 writ petition was filed which was allowed and against that order LPA. No.168 of 2008 was filed, wherein this court had directed Rs.35000/- to be paid towards maintenance and to decide the matrimonial case at the earliest. After the direction was issued the matrimonial case has been disposed of and permanent alimony has been granted. It is urged by Mr. M. N. Parbat, learned counsel for the husband-appellant in MA. No.204 of 2009 that the learned Family Judge has not taken into consideration the impecuniosity of the husband and has fastened liability on him upto Rs.2,00,000/- , as a consequence of which he is put in tremendous jeopardy and it is difficult on his part to pay the amount. On the contrary submission of Mr. Vivekanand Prasad, learned counsel for the wife, is that the appellant has share in 6 acres of landed property and as per his own showing he was earlier in the trading of steel at Meerganj and presently he is engaged in a private job at Meerganj and, therefore, the colossal complaint with regard to the plight of the appellant has no legs to stand upon. 4 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and a perusal of the order passed by the learned Family Judge it is noticeable that he has analysed every facet and taken note of the fact that the husband at present is not engaged in the trading of steel but, in fact, is engaged in a private job at Meerganj. The ground that has been urged by the wife is that her husband has landed property but no material was produced before the learned Family Judge. We are inclined to think that even if the same had been produced that would have not made any difference. In our considered opinion grant of Rs.2,00,000/- towards permanent alimony is sufficient and does not warrant interference. Be it noted, the learned Family Judge in the order impugned has directed for adjustment of Rs.35000/- which was paid by the husband in pursuance of the order passed in the letters patent appeal. Thus, the husband has to pay a sum of Rs.1,65000/- to the wife. Let the said amount be paid by the husband in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs.85000/- shall be paid by 15th of March, 2010 and 5 the second instalment shall be paid by 31st of June, 2010, failing which it is open to the wife to take appropriate steps as per law. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)