Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 05.11.2022 and decree dated 14.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 694 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the learned Family Court has allowed the divorce case filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. The case of the respondent-husband in brief is that the marriage between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on 08.07.2003 according to Hindu rites and rituals at the parental house of the appellant-wife situated at Mohalla Patel Nagar, Patna in presence of common wellwishers and relatives, and both the parties lived together as husband and wife. It is alleged that in the month of April, 2005 the appellant-wife left the society and company without consent of the respondent-husband and against his will she went to her naihar. Gradually, the behaviour and attitude of the appellant changed and she used to be very adamant on trivial issues. Both the parties, out of their wedlock, were blessed with a female child ‘Khushi’ @ ‘Wagisha Raj’ on 15.12.2004, who is presently in the custody and care of appellant-wife. The appellant-wife was ignorant about the health of the female child Khushi. It has been alleged that the appellant-wife refused to have physical relationship with the respondent-husband. Further, the appellantwife filed a criminal case under Sections 498A, 379, and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the respondent, his parents and unmarried nanad on 15.03.2007 vide Danapur P.S. Case No. 209 of 2007 in which the aforesaid accused were granted bail and after compromise respondent-husband and his family members were acquitted vide judgment dated 06.01.2008 from the Court of SDJM, Danapur. Based on the said compromise, the Matrimonial Case No. 100 of 2007 for restitution of conjugal rights was also disposed of. Thereafter, the appellant- wife along with her daughter Khushi went to live in her matrimonial house and started residing since 06.10.2007. It is stated that the appellant-wife is employed as a panchayat teacher in Bihar Government from 04.04.2007. She used to oppress the respondent to work outside Patna, and when he shifted to Hyderabad she was still unhappy. Thereafter, the appellant- wife along with her daughter Khushi went to live in her matrimonial house and started residing since 06.10.2007. It is stated that the appellant-wife is employed as a panchayat teacher in Bihar Government from 04.04.2007. She used to oppress the respondent to work outside Patna, and when he shifted to Hyderabad she was still unhappy. The appellant-wife treated the parents of the respondent-husband with cruelty and despite their old age and fragile health, she neglected their basic needs, including depriving them of food. The respondenthusband had to return back to Patna. The appellant-wife again left the matrimonial house on 18.03.2009 along with her daughter and again filed a criminal case against the respondent and his parents vide Complaint Case No. 535 (C) of 2010. Also, while leaving her matrimonial home she took along with her belongings including gold ornaments and valuable clothes. The relationship between the appellant and respondent has been irretrievably broken down and there is no hope of any restoration of their relationship. Hence, the respondent-husband sought decree of divorce from the learned Family Court vide Matrimonial Case No. 694 of 2011. 4. The appellant-wife appeared and filed her written statement and denied the allegation alleged by the respondent-husband. It is stated that all the demands raised at her marriage by the parents of the respondent-husband were fulfilled by the father of appellant-wife with a view to make family life and future of the appellant-wife happy and cheerful. The appellant-wife used to take proper care of the parents of the respondent and did her best to please them as a simple Indian wife. It was further stated that, from 5th month of her pregnancy till the delivery of the female child her father took all care and borne all expenses so related wherein the respondent-husband never performed his responsibility and duty of a husband. It is further stated that the behaviour of the respondent and his parents became more indifferent after birth of the female child Khushi as they were expecting a male child. Oppressed by their torture the appellant-wife was left with no alternative than to lodge case against the respondent-husband and his family members. Moreover, it is stated that she is working as a contractual panchayat teacher and is not having a permanent job. Oppressed by their torture the appellant-wife was left with no alternative than to lodge case against the respondent-husband and his family members. Moreover, it is stated that she is working as a contractual panchayat teacher and is not having a permanent job. Also, all her belongings including her gold ornaments and other articles are in custody of the respondent-husband and she was forcefully driven out of her matrimonial house. Hence, the divorce petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The conciliation between the parties failed. 6. In view of facts and circumstances and materials available on record learned Family Court, Patna held that the appellant has treated her husband with mental and physical cruelty. It has further been held that appellant-wife has deserted respondent-husband for not less than two years continuously preceding the immediate date of presentation of the suit and accordingly the suit has been decreed on contest under Sections 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Act and accordingly the marriage solemnized on 08.07.2003 between the parties was dissolved on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The appellant-wife, aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Family Court filed the instant appeal before this Court. 7. It is evident that the relationship between the parties appears to be strained from the very beginning and further, with time, it soured over the years. Also, reconciliation proceedings between both the parties failed. Further, it is relevant to note that the parties stayed together only for few years of the marriage, and even though they have a daughter out of wedlock, they have been staying separately for about 16 years. They have made serious allegations against each other and have been involved in litigation since then. Both the parties have no intention to reconcile, and have not cohabited since 2009. The admitted long standing separation, nature of differences, prolonged litigation, pending adjudication and unwillingness of the parties to reconcile, are enough evidence to show that the marriage between the parties has broken irretrievably. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife submitted that although the appellant-wife is a teacher, the female child namely Khushi @ Wagisha Raj, who is residing with the appellant, requires necessary funds to meet out her expenses of education, marriage and other expenses and accordingly, the appellant-wife proposed Rs.50 Lakhs as one-time settlement with regard to her permanent alimony. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife submitted that although the appellant-wife is a teacher, the female child namely Khushi @ Wagisha Raj, who is residing with the appellant, requires necessary funds to meet out her expenses of education, marriage and other expenses and accordingly, the appellant-wife proposed Rs.50 Lakhs as one-time settlement with regard to her permanent alimony. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-husband submitted that husband is ready to pay Rs.8 lakhs as permanent alimony. 9. Learned counsel for the parties conceded that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the relationship between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has irretrievably broken down. Since 2009, both the parties are residing separately and there is no hope of any restoration of their conjugal relationship. Due to lapse of time and changed circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to interfere in the impugned judgment/decree granting divorce between the parties. However, it is submitted that permanent alimony to the appellant-wife by the respondent-husband is required to be determined in the facts and circumstances of this case. Due to huge difference, learned counsel for the parties submitted to decide the quantum of permanent alimony by this Court to be paid by respondent-husband to appellant-wife on the basis of material available on record. 10. Therefore, it is to be decided by this Court: “what is a reasonable amount to be paid by the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife for her claim towards permanent alimony in the facts and circumstances of this case?” 11. It appears form the record that in Cr. Misc. No. 14206 of 2011 arising out of Complaint Case No. 535 (C ) of 2010 with respect to anticipatory bail of respondent-husband the learned single judge of this Court noted in the order dated 04.08.2011 that petitioner-husband was ready to pay permanent alimony and effort was made to sort out the difference but unfortunately matter was not sorted out. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of husband to the petition under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act by appellant, the respondent had offered Rs. 3 Lakh whereas the appellant demanded Rs.15 Lakh as permanent alimony. 12. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of husband to the petition under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act by appellant, the respondent had offered Rs. 3 Lakh whereas the appellant demanded Rs.15 Lakh as permanent alimony. 12. The facts on record demonstrate that vide order dated 27.04.2015 the learned Family Court allowed petition dated 22.05.2013 under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on behalf of appellant-wife, and the respondent-husband was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month for wife and Rs.2,000/- per month for the daughter towards maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.05.2013 and also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as lump sum to wife towards litigation cost. 13. Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for grant of permanent alimony at the time of passing any decree or at anytime subsequent thereto. The primary objective of granting permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not left without any support and means after the dissolution of the marriage. It aims at protecting the interests of the dependent spouse and does not provide for penalizing the other spouse in the process. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 , provided a comprehensive criterion and list of factors to be looked into while deciding the question of permanent alimony. This judgment lays down an elaborate and comprehensive framework necessary for deciding the amount of maintenance in all matrimonial proceedings, with specific emphasis on permanent alimony and the same has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Jyot Maini vs. Anish Pramod Patel reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pravin Kumar Jain vs. Anju Jain reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678 has taken note of the various judgments to clarify the position of law with regard to determination of permanent alimony and the factors that need to be considered in order to arrive at a just, fair, and reasonable amount of permanent alimony. In para 31 it is held as under: – “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. In para 31 it is held as under: – “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 vs. Paramvir Parmar, and Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court, taking note of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) and Kiran Jyot Maini (supra), in para 32 of Pravin Kumar Jain (supra) laid down the following eight factors to be looked into in deciding the quantum: – “i. Status of the parties, social and financial. ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children. iii. Parties’ individual qualifications and employment statuses. iv. Independent income or assets owned by the applicant. v. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home. vi. Any employment sacrifices made for the family responsibilities. vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a nonworking wife. viii. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities. These are only guidelines and not a straitjacket rubric. These among such other similar factors become relevant.” 17. It is pertinent to mention here that duration of the marriage i.e., how long the marriage existed is also a relevant factor in determining the quantum of permanent alimony. Generally, marriages that lasts more than 10 years are entitled to be granted a lifetime alimony. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) in para 74 observed that: – “74. In contemporary society, where several marriages do not last for a reasonable length of time, it may be inequitable to direct the contesting spouse to pay permanent alimony to the applicant for the rest of her life. The duration of the marriage would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for determining the permanent alimony to be paid.” (emphasis supplied) 18. The conduct of the party seeking the relief is also relevant. The duration of the marriage would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for determining the permanent alimony to be paid.” (emphasis supplied) 18. The conduct of the party seeking the relief is also relevant. The three-judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 299, observed in para 26 as under: – “26. .....We must note that sub-section 1 of Section 25 uses the word “may”. A grant of a decree under Section 25 of the 1955 Act is discretionary. If the conduct of the spouse who applies for maintenance is such that the said spouse is not entitled to discretionary relief, the Court can always turn down the prayer for the grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Equitable considerations do apply when the Court considers the prayer for maintenance under Section 25. The reason is that Section 25 lays down that while considering the prayer for granting relief under Section 25, the conduct of the parties must be considered.” (emphasis supplied) 19. The admitted facts are that the marriage between the parties solemnized on 08.07.2003 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and they have been blessed with a female child on 15.12.2004. The appellant-wife filed dowry torture case vide Danapur P.S. Case No.209 of 2007 on 15.03.2007 against the respondent-husband and his parents and sister which was compromised. The appellant-wife is residing in her parental home with her daughter since 12.03.2009 and again filed dowry torture complaint case bearing No.535(C) of 2010 against the appellant and his family members. It is not in dispute that respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Case No.100 of 2007 on 27.02.2007 for restitution of conjugal rights which was disposed of on 26.11.2007. 20. In the light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) and Aditi @ Mithi vs. Jitesh Sharma reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451, the parties have filed their affidavit of assets and liabilities. 21. As per the affidavit of respondent-husband, he is 48 years old, a qualified Automobile Engineer residing at his parental house at Abhiyanta Nagar, Danapur, Patna owned by his mother Late Krishna Sharma and is not employed since 2010, having car loan and T.V. loan. 21. As per the affidavit of respondent-husband, he is 48 years old, a qualified Automobile Engineer residing at his parental house at Abhiyanta Nagar, Danapur, Patna owned by his mother Late Krishna Sharma and is not employed since 2010, having car loan and T.V. loan. He is having ¼th joint share in 1 Acre & 72.5 decimal of ancestral land with his sister and is subject matter of pending title suit bearing T.S. No.01 of 2017 pending before Civil Court, Seikhpura. He is paying Rs.7,000/- per month in compliance of order dated 27.04.2015 passed in Matrimonial Case No.694 of 2011 in petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the appellant-wife and also paying Rs.2,000/- in compliance of order dated 04.08.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No.14206 of 2011. The allegation by appellant-wife is that respondent-husband has 8.83½ Acre of ancestral land in Seikhpura having huge income from the same. It is further alleged that he is enjoying the house situated at Abhiyanta Nagar, Gola Road, Patna valued at Rs.5 Crores which was in the name of his deceased mother. His father was a civil surgeon. 22. It appears form the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed on behalf of the appellant-wife, it is apparent that she is aged about 43 years old and she holds a degree of M.A., Diploma in Primary Education (DPE) and she is employed as panchayat teacher with monthly income of Rs.42,799/-. She has share in ancestral property valued @ Rs.30 lacs and purchased one flat of 418 sq. feet in third floor of Shivlok Apartment for consideration of Rs.8,63,000/- whereas respondent has 2722 sq. feet built up area in Patna. 23. It is admitted fact that the appellant-wife is employed as panchayat teacher having monthly salary of Rs.42,799/- and capable of maintaining herself. However, as discussed above, the appellant-wife has claimed one-time settlement amount for maintenance including educational/marriage expenses of their daughter, who is residing with the appellant-wife, and being father, the respondent-husband is required to provide fund in this regard. 24. It is not in dispute that it is duty and obligation of a Hindu father to maintain his unmarried daughter if she is unable to maintain herself. The father also has obligation to meet the reasonable expenses of marriage of his daughter as per social as well as economic status. 24. It is not in dispute that it is duty and obligation of a Hindu father to maintain his unmarried daughter if she is unable to maintain herself. The father also has obligation to meet the reasonable expenses of marriage of his daughter as per social as well as economic status. The right of an unmarried daughter to get marriage expenses from her is now a legal right. The definition of ‘maintenance’ is inclusive of marriage expenditure. The obligation to maintain the daughter and get her married is said to be personal in character and arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties. The law does not give any provision which states that an unmarried daughter even if employed and earning be assumed to have resource to meet her matrimonial expenses. A father who lives separately from his wife and daughter cannot escape the liability to maintain his daughter. 25. In view whereof, considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, this court directs the respondent-husband to deposit Rs. 20 Lakhs in the name of daughter for expenses towards her education and marriage within four months from the date of this judgment. 26. It is hereby clarified that the aforesaid amount shall not preclude or otherwise affect the right of the daughter of the parties to inherit property, if any, to which she may be legally entitled. 27. This Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. 28. Pending I.A(s), if any, stand disposed of. P. B. Bajanthri, J. – I am on the same page.