The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MATA No. 198 of 2022 Pradeep Kumar Rath …. Appellant Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate -versus- Susmita Mishra …. Opposite Parties Mr. M. Kanungo, Sr. Advocate MATA No. 38 of 2022 Susmita Mishra …. Appellant
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M. Kanungo, Sr. Advocate -versus- Dr. Pradeep Kumar Rath …. Opposite Parties Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 12.05.2025 By the Bench: 1. Both the Appeals arise out the Judgment and order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No.414 of 2015 and the same having been heard analogously are disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The Appellant-wife in MATA No.38 of 2022, inter alia challenged the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2022 praying to MATA Nos. 198 & 38 of 2022 Page 1 of 7 set aside the same while the Appellant-husband in MATA No.198 of 2022 challenged the aforesaid impugned judgment only in respect to the quantum of permanent alimony. 3. The Respondent-husband in MATA No.38 of 2022 being the Appellant in MATA No.198 of 2022, moved the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No.414 of 2015, inter alia, praying for a decree of divorce. The Respondent-wife accordingly contested the case. The learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar having heard both the parties and assessing the evidence led before it, allowed the application of the husband by declaring the marriage of the parties dissolved, by a decree of divorce and further directed the husband to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) to the wife towards permanent alimony. 4. In course of hearing before this Court, the Respondent- wife agreed not to disturb the decree of divorce passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in the impugned judgment and accordingly both the parties limited their challenge to the quantum of alimony only. 5. The factual matrix giving rise to the dispute between the husband and wife, found necessary for the disposal of the issue regarding permanent alimony, is that out of the wedlock between the parties, they have begotten a son and a daughter. Both the son and daughter are residing with the wife and are major. It is further case of the parties that the husband was a doctor engaged in Government hospital and took voluntary retirement. The wife on the other hand is engaged as a guest teacher with effect from July MATA Nos. 198 & 38 of 2022 Page 2 of 7 2023 and receiving monthly remuneration of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) being engaged in Times Scholars’ Gurukul, Gothopatana, Bhubaneswar. The husband at the time of seeking voluntary retirement was receiving gross pension of Rs.97,002/- (Rupees Ninety-Seven Thousand and Two only) per month and net amount of Rs.87,002/- (Rupees Eighty-Seven Thousand and Two only). While the husband prays for reduction of the quantum of alimony fixed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, the wife prays for enhancement of the same to the extent of Rs.1,00,000,00/- (Rupees One Crore Only). 6. On the direction of this Court, both the parties filed affidavits in respect to their income, assets and liabilities respectively. The husband, though disclosed his net pension amount to be Rs.87,002/- (Rupees Eighty-Seven Thousand and Two only), claims to have liabilities of taking care of his parents, who are aged about 91 years and 84 years. He also submits that he spends Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) towards the medications for his parents besides his domestic expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand only) towards the care-taker and house-help and accordingly insists for reduction of the permanent alimony. The wife on the other hand claims that the husband besides his pension, is having substantial income from his private practice, visiting various hospitals including Vivekananda’s Heath Care & Medical Hospital, KIMS, Aditya Care Hospital, Shree Hospital and various other private clinics in Bhubaneswar. MATA Nos. 198 & 38 of 2022 Page 3 of 7 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the husband to the effect that the wife is professionally engaged and has income of her own, is not entitled to the enhancement of the alimony has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the wife. 8. Before adverting to address the issue in fixing the permanent alimony, it is profitable to refer to the various principles laid down in this respect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parvin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain reported in [2024] 12 S.C.R. 543, held as follows: “30. Before going into the details of the financial position of the parties, it is imperative that we highlight the position of law with regard to determination of permanent alimony. This Court, in a catena of judgments, has laid down the factors that needs to be considered in order to arrive at a just, fair and reasonable amount of permanent alimony. 31. There cannot be strict guidelines or a fixed formula for fixing the amount of permanent maintenance. The quantum of maintenance is subjective to each case and is dependent on various circumstances and factors. The Court needs to look into factors such as income of both the parties; conduct during the subsistence of marriage; their individual social and financial status; personal expenses of each of the parties; their individual capacities and duties to maintain their dependents; the quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the subsistence of the marriage; and such other similar factors. This position was laid down by this Court in Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar1, and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal2. 32. This Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra), provided a comprehensive criterion and a list of factors to be looked into while deciding the question of permanent alimony. This lays down an elaborate and comprehensive framework necessary for deciding the amount of maintenance in all matrimonial proceedings, with specific emphasis on permanent alimony. The same has been reiterated by this Court in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (Supra). The primary objective of granting judgment