The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability for monthly maintenance and the award of a lump sum permanent alimony based on the income and property ownership of the parties.

Shiva Kirti Singh and Hemant Kumar Srivastava JJ.

1. Both the appeals under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arise out of a common order dated 20.8.2005 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 28 of 1996 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna under Section 25 of the Act. By the order under appeal, the learned court below has not accepted the claim of the appellant Lakshmy Rani Kappor (for short the wife) for a lump sum permanent alimony of Rs. 30 lakhs but has granted alimony by way of monthly payment of Rs. 10,000/-. The wife has preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 179 of 2006 for decree of her claim of Rs. 30 lakhs by way of permanent alimony in one lump sum whereas Manoj Ambastha (for short the husband) has preferred the other appeal on the ground that the award of Rs. 10,000/per month by way of alimony is excessive.

2. For proper appreciation of the issue involved in these appeals, a look at the background facts in brief appears to be relevant. The husband brought about Matrimonial Suit No. 28 of 1996 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce against his wife on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and adultery. The allegations were denied by his wife who alleged cruelty on the part of the husband such as by demand of dowry, physical assault etc. On these grounds she also prayed for a decree of divorce which was granted by judgment and decree dated 28.9.2000. However, on some technical ground such as lack of verification and affidavit, the Family Court did not allow permanent alimony.

3. The wife challenged the denial of permanent alimony and maintenance before this Court through Miscellaneous Appeal No. 587 of 2000. By judgment and order dated 5.3.2003, this Court directed the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month till a final decision of her claim for alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and remitted the matter to the Family Court for a decision within four months.

4. It is further relevant to note that Miscellaneous Appeal No. 587 of 2000 preferred by the wife was also directed against findings like desertion and cruelty which were made the ground for grant of divorce. In that appeal an order was passed on 19.3.2001 which is Annexure-3 to Miscellaneous Appeal No. 370 of 2005. By that order while fixing interim maintenance of Rs. 4000 per month, a Division Bench of this Court held that only for technical reasons the court below had examined the alleged grounds for divorce and held them good for granting divorce along with a finding that the divorce between the two had become a necessity. This Court held that the discussions and findings regarding desertion and cruelty were superfluous and in the facts of the case, could not be taken seriously so as to affect the claim of the wife for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act. By that order this Court revised the interim maintenance from Rs. 1600 to Rs. 4000/- per month till the court below passed final orders under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and disposed of the matrimonial suit. Against that order the husband preferred Civil Review No. 60 of 2001 which was heard with the main Miscellaneous Appeal No. 587 of 2000 leading to final disposal of the Miscellaneous Appeal by order dated 5.3.2003 which is Annexure -4 to Miscellaneous Appeal No. 370 of 2005.

5. In spite of direction to dispose of the application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act within four months, the matter remained pending because of non- cooperative attitude of the husband. He had filed MJC No. 932 of 2003 before this Court for modification of the final judgment dated 5.3.2003 passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 587 of 2000. That matter was finally disposed of by order dated 10.3.2005. A copy of that order is Annexure- 1 to Miscellaneous Appeal No. 179 of 2006. Therein this Court noticed the non- cooperative attitude of the husband as he h