Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1747 (PAT)

Priti Devi v. Prasidha Kumar Singh

2011-08-17

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, S.K.KATRIAR

body2011
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. – Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shankar Dayal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The present miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.2006 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 190 of 1998 by which the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna has passed the order in favour of respondent No. 1 for dissolution of marriage. 3. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are noted hereinbelow. 4. The marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rites on 30.4.1971. Thereafter it appears that the respondent No. 1 who was in Government service was not living in his ancestral house in the village and was rather staying at Patna and did not keep the present appellant with him. Only for small intervals the appellant used to stay with the respondent No. 1. She stayed in her matrimonial house in the District of Aurangabad. It appears that soon thereafter respondent No. 1 refused to keep her with him at Patna. This led to further erosion of the relationship between the two. Finally the appellant was forced to file maintenance case in the year 1998. This prompted the respondent No. 1 to file case for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion. Upon contest the said matrimonial case was allowed by the judgment and degree under appeal in the present case. This Court on previous occasion tried to bring about reconciliation between the parties but the same could not have any fruitful effect. It transpired during such reconciliation that the respondent No.1 had contracted second marriage in October, 2007. It is further alleged that the second wife of the respondent No. 1 resides with him. 5. In view of the factual position existing and coupled with the fact that the respondent No. 1 is adamant not to accept the appellant as his wife or live with her, this Court cannot hope or direct for any reconciliation or force upon respondent No. 1 to keep the appellant with him. 5. In view of the factual position existing and coupled with the fact that the respondent No. 1 is adamant not to accept the appellant as his wife or live with her, this Court cannot hope or direct for any reconciliation or force upon respondent No. 1 to keep the appellant with him. In more or less similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kiran Devi vs. Batul Kumar Verma by order dated 27.8.2010 (as reported in 2011 (1) P.L.J.R 222 ) has passed an order, the operative portion of which is contained in Paragraph 10 of the said order and reads as under: – “10. Only for the sake of clarification the salient features of the agreement are summarized hereinbelow. (1) The marriage between the parties shall be deemed to be subsisting. (2) Parties have agreed to live separately and not to interfere with each others private lives. (3) They have agreed not to pursue any civil or criminal case against each other. (4) The husband shall ensure that the competent authority of his Department, Railway Mail Service shall send every month to the wife 50% of his monthly salary after deducting only Rs. 6,260/- per month which is presently being deducted till the scooter loan and such other loans are liquidated. It is also agreed that the deduction shall include any compulsory deduction on account of income tax over the salary income”. 6. This Court had directed the parties on the last occasion to file their supplementary affidavit with regard to the nature of amicable settlement and the terms thereof which would facilitate this Court in passing final order. The said affidavit has been filed by the appellant as well as the respondent No.1. The appellant has stated that she may be permitted to live in her matrimonial house till she is alive without any hindrance and that she may at least have the satisfaction of being called wife of the respondent. She however, assures that she will not interfere in any manner with the life or family matters of the respondent no.1. She claims that a reasonable amount may be allowed to her to be payable by the respondent No. 1 for her maintenance. 7. She however, assures that she will not interfere in any manner with the life or family matters of the respondent no.1. She claims that a reasonable amount may be allowed to her to be payable by the respondent No. 1 for her maintenance. 7. On the other hand it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that he is ready to support the appellant and the amount of Rs. 3,000/- which had been granted to the appellant by way of interim arrangement in the present proceeding earlier was a little bit on the higher side. It has been brought on record that the total emoluments of the respondent No. 1 is Rs. 44,043/- and it is a separate matter that out of the same the respondent No. 1 has chosen to get deductions of various amount on account of G.P.F. etc. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in a wider perspective and looking at the matter in totality, we are also inclined to pass an order similar in nature to that passed in the case of Kiran Devi (supra). Accordingly, this appeal is disposed off in terms of the following directions. (1) The judgment and decree under appeal is hereby set-aside. It shall be deemed that the marriage is subsisting and the appellant in the wife of the respondent No. 1. (2) Both the parties shall live separately and shall not interfere with each other in their private lives. The appellant shall be entitled to reside in her matrimonial home as she is living now till she is alive without any hindrance or disturbance by respondent No. 1 including his other family members. (3) The appellant shall neither insist nor interfere with the management or the proceeds of the property owned by the respondent No.1. (4) Both the parties shall not indulge in any further litigation and whatever litigation may be pending shall also be withdrawn or shall not be pursued by either of the parties. (5) It is also directed that the respondent No. 1 shall pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant with effect from 1st of September, 2011 till she is alive with the provision that this amount shall be increased by 10% every 5 years. This amount shall be paid by the respondent even after superannuating from service. 10,000/- per month to the appellant with effect from 1st of September, 2011 till she is alive with the provision that this amount shall be increased by 10% every 5 years. This amount shall be paid by the respondent even after superannuating from service. In the event the appellant outlives the respondent No. 1, then 100% family pension shall be payable to the appellant in order to make this arrangement more workable. It is expected that the said amount shall be deposited by the respondent No. 1 in Account No. 11113600238 of the State Bank of India at Aurangabad Branch latest by the 15th of every month. It is made clear that any violation of this arrangement shall give cause of action to the appellant to move this Court in appropriate proceeding pointing out disobedience of this order. 9. It is worthwhile to record that this order has been passed in presence of the parties themselves and they have agreed to this arrangement. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed off with the aforementioned directions. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to cost. S. K. Katriar, J. – I agree.