IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.582 of 2009 13 18.1.2010 Dr Vivekanand Sharma, son of late Satya Narain Rai, resident of village Dighra, Police Station and District Samastipur (wrongly mentioned as resident of village Gannipur, Ward No.28, Police Satation- Kazi Mohammadpur, Post Office- Ramna Town, Sub Division East Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur .... (Opposite party ... Appellant VERSUS Smt. Manorama Rai alias Amrita, wife of Vevekanand Sharma, resident of village- Sonbarsa Panapur, Police Station and Anchal- Kanti, Sub-Division West Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur (In fact the Matrimonail Case has been filed by Amrita, daughter of Ram Baran Rai, resident of village- Sonbarsa, Panapur, Pooice Station and Anchal Kanti, Sub-Division- West Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur wrongly describing her alias name as Manorama Rai, wife of Dr Vivekanand Sharma .... Respondent -------- For the Appellant : Mr V.R.P. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : M/s Sunil Kumar Verma and Suman Kumar Verma, Advocates --------- Heard Mr V.R.P.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr Sunil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By the judgment under appeal dated 15th March, 2008 the learned Prinicipal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur has allowed Matrimonial Case No.5/99 filed by the sole respondent seeking judicial separation from her 2 2 husband, the appellant and a permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month along with costs of Rs.25.000/-. 3. The respondent claimed that she was married to the appellant in the year 1973 when she was still a student of matriculation. It is her case that with her father’s help the appellant got admitted into a medical college but after becoming a doctor, he later deserted her and has married another lady. Details of earlier round of litigation on account of divorce case by the appellant bearing No.2/85 before the District Judge, Sitamarhi, were mentioned by her and she sought judicial separation on account of desertion and mental cruelty and also claimed for permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per month after giving details of property of the appellant and his monthly income from various sources which in the year 1999, amounted to Rs.24,000/- per month. The stand of the appellant in his written statement was that the respondent had wrongly assumed the alias name and Manorama Rai and Amrita Rai are two different ladies. He claimed to have married Manorama Rai in 1973 and allegedly she deserted him in the year 1983 and on that 3 3 account he admittedly filed a divorce suit against Manorama @ Amrita Rai but the same was subsequently withdrawn. He also disputed income from sources other than salary and in a vague manner attempted to deny marriage with the respondent. 4. After proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Family Court came to a finding that Manorama Rai @ Amrita Rai are not two different persons, rather they are the name of the same lady who was married to the appellant. The court below found that the respondent had succeeded in proving the necessary facts such as desertion by the appellant and hence, she was entitled for a decree for judicial separation on that account. 5. After considering the evidence showing that salary of the appellant was Rs.13,000/- per month in 1999 i.e. nine years earlier to the passing of the judgment under appeal and considering that salary of government servants had increased manifold since then, the Family Court granted permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. 4 4 6. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us to take a different view of the evidence on the issue of identity of the respondent i.e. whether she was Manorama Rai or Amrita Rai and whether the appellant had married the respondent or some other lady named as Manorama Rai. 7. On going through the discussion made by the learned Family Court of the evidence, oral as well as documentary, particularly, the admission made by the appellant that in the divorce suit filed by him earlier, Manorama Rai and Amrita Rai were shown to be one and the same lady, we find no substance in the aforesaid plea raised on behalf of the appellant. 8. It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that the permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month has been determined without any basis. However, the appellant has not denied that he is a MBBS doctor employed in the State Health Services and in the year 1999, his monthly salary was Rs.13,000/-. He also not brought before us relevant documents to show his monthly salary and his annual income as disclosed to the 5 5 Income Tax Department. In such circumstances, we find no justification to reduce the amount of permanent alimony because being wife of a MBBS doctor, the respondent is entitled to lead a life befitting to the status of a MBBS doctor’s wife whose husband is in the service of State Government since long. 9. In that view of the matter and considering the entire facts and circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is summarily dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. (Dipak Misra,CJ) (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) sk