2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

First Appeal No. 216 of 2025

------

Rinky Singh, Aged about 36 years, D/o-Mahendra Singh,

R/o - House 5, 13/5 Priyadarshini Parisar west, Motilal

Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Durg, P.O. Nehru Nagar, & P.S. -

Supela, District-Durg, Chattisgarh-490020.

… … Appellant

Versus

1. Deepak Singh Ari, aged about 37 years, Son of Late

Pritam Singh Ari, R/o Ram Bhawan, Tata Road, Ward

No. 22, P.O. & P.S. Mofussil, Chaibasa, District West

Singhbhum.

2. The State of Jharkhand through D.C. Chaibasa.

… … Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Sr. Advocate

: Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate

For the Resp. No.1 : Mrs. Oishi Das, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.

------

C.A.V. on 07.07.2026 Pronounced on 06/08/2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family

Court Act, 1984, is directed against the order/judgment dated

25.03.2025 and decree signed on 05.04.2025 passed by the

learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at

Chaibasa in Original Suit No.81 of 2024, whereby and

whereunder, the suit filed by the respondent-husband for

dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a) and

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

2

(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant-wife,

has been allowed.

Factual Matrix

2. The marriage between the respondent herein/petitioner

and the appellant/ respondent was solemnized on 28.12.2016

according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Nehru Nagar

Gurudwara, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. The marriage

was an arranged marriage initiated through the matrimonial

website Jeevansathi.com.

3. After marriage, the parties started residing together as

husband and wife. Out of the wedlock, one daughter was

born.

4. The petitioner alleges that after the marriage, differences

arose between the parties on account of incompatibility of

temperament and repeated matrimonial discord. According to

him, the respondent frequently stayed at her parental home

and despite repeated requests, did not return to the

matrimonial home. The petitioner visited the parental house

of the respondent on 18.07.2018 to bring the respondent and

the minor daughter back, but he was allegedly misbehaved

with by the respondent and her family members and

ultimately returned on 22.07.2018.

5. The petitioner has alleged that on different occasions he

transferred amounts of Rs.10,000/- each to the accounts of

the respondent's mother and brother to meet the respondent's

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

3

requirements. Despite such efforts, the respondent allegedly

refused to resume cohabitation.

6. Consequently, the petitioner instituted proceedings under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal

rights before the Court,Chaibasa which was registered as

Original Suit No.20 of 2019. During pendency thereof, the

respondent sought transfer of the proceeding before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Transfer Petition (Civil)

No.1167 of 2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the

proceedings and thereafter transferred the case to the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg.

7. Thereafter, several litigations came to be instituted

between the parties. The respondent lodged Supela Police

Station Case No.660 of 2019 under Sections 498A/34 IPC

against the petitioner, his mother and married sister. The

petitioner and his family members obtained anticipatory bail

and subsequently charge-sheet was submitted giving rise to

Criminal Case No.2666 of 2021 before the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Durg.

8. The petitioner further alleges that on 23.07.2019 the

respondent along with her family members came to his

residence and forcibly entered the house, assaulted his

mother and removed jewellery from the house. On the basis

of the complaint lodged by the petitioner's mother, Muffasil

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

4

P.S. Case No.84 of 2019 under Sections 323, 341, 342, 379,

504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC was registered.

9. The respondent also initiated proceedings under Section

125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and the minor

daughter, claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/ -

along with litigation expenses. She also instituted proceedings

under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act before the competent Court at Durg.

10. The petitioner, on the other hand, filed proceedings

under Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act

seeking custody and guardianship of the minor daughter.

11. During pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, with

the intervention of elders, well-wishers and learned counsel

appearing for both sides, the parties amicably resolved all

their disputes. The terms of the settlement are as follows:

(a) the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage by

mutual consent;

(b) the petitioner-husband (respondent herein)

agreed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.20,00,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as one-time permanent

alimony towards full and final settlement of all claims

of the respondent and the minor daughter;

(c) on presentation of the joint petition, the petitioner

paid Rs.10,00,000/- through demand

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

5

drafts/cheques, which the respondent /appellant

herein accepted and encashed;

(d) the petitioner handed over all jewellery belonging

to the respondent except one diamond ring and one

gold ring, which were agreed to be delivered at the

time of second motion;

(e) custody of the minor daughter shall permanently

remain with the respondent;

(f) the petitioner shall have visitation rights, if

mutually agreed between the parties;

(g) both parties agreed to withdraw all pending civil

and criminal proceedings against each other and

their respective family members.

12. Pursuant to the settlement, the petitioner withdrew

the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act

and under Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards

Act. Likewise, the respondent withdrew the proceedings under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act.

13. The petitioner complied with all the terms and

conditions agreed between the parties for dissolution of

marriage, he paid the half of the permanent alimony amount

agreed and was ready and willing to pay the remaining half

amount agreed. However, the respon dent started

blackmailing the petitioner by demanding additional amount

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

6

as permanent alimony and threatened that she would not give

her consent for dissolution of marriage during second motion

and when the petitioner refused to accede to illegal and unjust

demands of respondent, she acted on her threats and refused

to give her consent for dissolution of her marriage and

withdrew her consent. As such the proceeding under Section

13(1)B was dismissed by the learned Principal Judge, Family

Court, Durg, vide order dated 25.11.2023 and the respondent

also did not return the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and jewelry

taken by her as per terms and conditions agreed between

them in proceeding under Section 13(B) of the HMA 1955 and

has kept the criminal proceeding bearing Criminal Proceeding

Case No. 2666/2021, pending before the court of the learned

CJM Durg, Chattisgarh.

14. The respondent/ petitioner-husband, on the ground

of cruelty and desertion, had filed an application under

Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b), of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before

the Family Court for a decree of divorce against his lawfully

wedded wife and the same was numbered as the Original Suit

No. 81 of 2024.

15. Notice was issued to the respondent through speed

post as well as the petitioner himself served the notice upon

respondent wife but she did not appear before the court.

16. Thereafter, learned Family Court ordered to publish

the notice in daily newspaper widely circulated in Bhilai-

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

7

Raipur, so the notice was published in Dainik Bhaskar

newspaper on 24.11.2024 published from Bhilai-Raipur but

the respondent again did not appear before the court.

17. The court found that all the notices were duly served

upon respondent and the notice was also published in daily

newspaper in Dainik Bhaskar on 24.11.2024 despite that the

respondent evaded herself from court proceeding, so the court

was of the view that notice was presumed to be duly served

upon respondent. The court initiated ex parte proceeding on

20.12.2024 against respondent-wife and the petitioner was

directed to produce evidence documentary and oral, if any.

18. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned

counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the

material available on record, has framed four issues for

adjudication of the lis, which are being referred as under:-

“ (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action for filing the suit?

(iii) Whether the respondent wife committed subjected to

physical and mental cruelty with her husband by misbehaving

with him and her mother -in-law and has deserted her

husband permanently to bring cohabitation to an end (animus

deserendi)?

(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled visitation right to meet

with his daughter within the scope of section 26 of Hindu

Marriage Act?”

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

8

19. Thereafter, the case proceeded for evidence during

which the respondent-husband has examined five witnesses

including himself as well as exhibited some documents.

20. The learned Principal Judge, Family court, after

appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of petitioner,

came to the conclusion that the respondent-husband, has

been able to prove and substantiate the factum of cruelty

meted out to him by the defendant -wife and that the

appellant-wife has deserted him, as such it was held that the

husband, the respondent herein, is entitled to get a decree of

divorce, against which, the instant appeal has been preferred

by the wife-appellant.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

21. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

though the appellant intends to reside with the respondent

but since the respondent/husband is adamant not to live with

the appellant-wife, as such, the only question remains for

alimony.

22. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

he will not argue the case on merit and prayed that the matter

may be resolved by providing the alimony for one time

settlement.

23. Lastly, he has submitted that the appellant-wife has

no source of income to survive.

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

9

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:

24. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has

submitted that he also does not want to go into the merit of

issue and the matter may be decided taking into consideration

the fact that a compromise was arrived at between the parties,

whereby and where under the parties agreed to file an

application for dissolution of their marriage by mutual

consent and the respondent-husband agreed to pay a

consolidated sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as one-time permanent

alimony towards full and final settlement of all claims of the

respondent and the minor daughter, out of which the

respondent-husband paid Rs.10,00,000/- through demand

drafts/cheques, which the respondent accepted and

encashed.

25. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has

submitted that the respondent-husband is still ready to pay

25,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony.

Analysis:

26. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment passed

by the learned family court, the appellant-wife has preferred

the present appeal.

27. Thereafter, the matter was heard by this Court on

09.04.2026 and on that date, learned counsel for both parties

have consented that in order to explore the possibility of

settlement through reunion, the parties may be called upon.

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

10

28. In view of such submission, this Court called upon

both the parties on the next date of hearing.

29. On 05.05.2026, both parties appeared before this

Court. The Court interacted with them , however, the

respondent-husband remained adamant in his refusal to

reside with the appellant-wife.

30. Accordingly, both the parties were directed to file

their respective affidavits in view of the judgment rendered in

the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. [(2021) 2 SCC 324]

giving therein the details of their source of income both

movable and immovable.

31. The Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa was also

directed to submit a report regarding the entire assets of the

respondent-husband and the known/unknown source of

income.

32. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, the

appellant-wife, has filed affidavit dated 09.06.2026 stating

inter alia therein that she has no source of income and she is

completely dependent upon her parents for the expenses of

self and the child.

33. The respondent-husband has also filed affidavit

disclosing his income etc. and accordingly the matter has

been heard on the point of determination of permanent

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

11

alimony without going in to the merit of the impugned

judgment.

34. In pursuance to the direction of this Court dated

05.05.2026, the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa has also

filed affidavit giving therein the details of movable property

and the income of the respondent.

35. However, after appearance of the respondent -

husband, the parties have agreed for permanent alimony and

accordingly submission has been made in support thereof.

36. It is evident from record that during the pendency of

the suit before the learned Family Court, the appellant-wife

has expressed her willingness to accept dissolution of

marriage, provided she is paid Rs.20,00,000/- as permanent

alimony in full and final settlement. The respondent-husband

had also agreed and accordingly Rs. Ten Lakh has been

accepted in form of demand draft and the said demand draft

was encashed by the wife (appellant herein) but later on the

appellant wife withdrew her consent and the matter could not

be settled finally.

37. This Court in the aforesaid backdrop facts and

submission requires to consider as to “what would be the

quantum of permanent alimony to meet the needs of the

appellant/wife and the female child on the basis of pleadings

available on record?”

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

12

38. This Court, before considering the aforesaid issue,

needs to refer herein the provision of law as contained under

Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein it has

been provided that any court exercising jurisdiction under

this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time

subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose

by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order

that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his

maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly

or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the

applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income

and other property, if any, the income and other property of

the applicant, it may seem to the court to be just, and any

such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on

the immovable property of the respondent. For ready

reference, Section 25 of the Act, 1955 is quoted as under:

“25. Permanent alimony and maintenance .—(1) Any

court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time

of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on

application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or

the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent

shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and

support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum

for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having

regard to the respondent’s own income and other property,

if any, the income and other property of the applicant 1 [the

conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case],

it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

13

may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable

property of the respondent.

(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the

circumstances of either party at any time after it has made

an order under sub-section (1), it may, at the instance of

either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such

manner as the court may deem just.

(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an

order has been made under this section has re-married or,

if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste,

or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual

intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, 2 [it may at

the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any

such order in such manner as the court may deem just].”

39. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that concept

of permanent alimony as provided under Section 25 have been

enacted with the object of removing the hardship of the wife

or the husband with no independent income sufficient for

living or meeting litigant expenses; such a leave can be

granted as well who may also be deprived of the same on proof

of having sexual intercourse outside the wedlock. It is also

settled position of law that the Court may grant permanent

alimony to the party while disposing of the main application

even if application has been moved; meaning thereby the

intent of the Act is to remove the handicap/hardship of a wife

or husband by passing an appropriate order at the

appropriate stage either under Section 24 or 25 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955. The basic behind this is to sustain the life

of husband or wife, if having no sufficient source of income.

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

14

40. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the

intent of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act in catena of

Judgments wherein it has been observed that Section 25 of

Act 1955 is an enabling provision. It empowers the court in a

matrimonial case to consider facts and circumstances of the

spouse applying and deciding whether or not to grant

permanent alimony. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 provides

that a matrimonial Court exercising the jurisdiction under

the Hindu Marriage Act may at the time of passing a decree

or at any time subsequent thereto on an Application made to

it, order to pay maintenance.

41. Thus, a power is conferred on the Matrimonial Court

to grant permanent alimony or maintenance on the basis of a

decree of divorce passed under the Hindu Marriage Act even

subsequent to the date of passing of the decree on the basis

of an application made in that behalf. Sub-section (2)

of Section 25 confers a power on the Court to vary, modify or

rescind the order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 in

case of change in circumstances. The power under Sub -

section (3) of Section 25 is an independent power. The said

power can be exercised if the Court is satisfied that the wife

in whose favour an order under Subsection (1)

of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made has not

remained chaste. In such event, at the instance of the other

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

15

party, the Court may vary, modify or rescind the order under

Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

42. Reference in this regard may be made to the

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee

Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200. For ready reference, paragraph

14 of the judgment is quoted as under:

“14. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers

power upon the court to grant a permanent alimony to either

spouse who claims the same by making an application. Sub-

section (2) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act confers

ample power on the court to vary, modify or discharge any

order for permanent alimony or permanent maintenance

that may have been made in any proceeding under the Act

under the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section

25. In exercising the power under Section 25(2), the court

would have regard to the “change in the circumstances of

the parties”. There must be some change in the

circumstances of either party which may have to be taken

into account when an application is made under sub-section

(2) of Section 25 for variation, modification or rescission of

the order as the court may deem just.”

43. We may note here that a substitution has been brought to

Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act with

effect from 27

th May 1976. Earlier, it was provided under Sub-

section (3) of Section 25 that if the Court was satisfied that the

party in whose favour an order has been made has not remained

chaste, it shall rescind the order. The words “it shall rescind the

order” appearing in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 were replaced

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

16

by the said amendment by the words “it may at the instance of

the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order …..”. The

legislature in its wisdom by the said substitution has provided

that after the facts stated in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of

the Hindu Marriage Act are established, the Court may vary,

modify or rescind any such order under Sub -section (1)

of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, after 1976, there

is a discretion conferred on the Court by Sub -section (3)

of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of declining to rescind,

vary or modify the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25

thereof, even if on an Application made by the husband/wife, it

is established that the husband/wife has not remained chaste

after the decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-section (1)

of Section 25.

44. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinny Parmvir

Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 while

appreciating the core of Section 25 of the Act 1955 has observed

that for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse,

the respondent's own income and other property, and the

income and other property of the applicant are all relevant

material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other

circumstances of the case, for ready reference the relevant

paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:

“12. As per Section 25, while considering the claim for

permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

17

respondent's own income and other property, and the

income and other property of the applicant are all relevant

material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other

circumstances of the case. It is further seen that the court

considering such claim has to consider all the above

relevant materials and determine the amount which is to be

just for living standard. No fixed formula can be laid for

fixing the amount of maintenance. It has to be in the nature

of things which depend on various facts and circumstances

of each case. The court has to consider the status of the

parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband

to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own

maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain

under the law and statute. The courts also have to take note

of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife

should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort

considering her status and mode of life she was used to live

when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the

amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living

condition of the other party. These are all the broad

principles courts have to be kept (sic keep) in mind while

determining maintenance or permanent alimony.

45. It needs to refer herein that no arithmetic formula can be

adopted for grant of permanent alimony to wife. However, status

of parties, their respective social needs, financial capacity of

husband and other obligations must be taken into account. The

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013)

2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting permanent

alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot

be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of

the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

18

of the husband and other obligations. For ready reference the

relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

“33. We have reproduced the aforesaid orders to highlight

that the husband had agreed to buy a flat at Hyderabad.

However, when the matter was listed thereafter, there was

disagreement with regard to the locality of the flat arranged

by the husband and, therefore, the matter was heard on

merits. We have already opined that the husband has made

out a case for divorce by proving mental cruelty. As a decree

is passed, the wife is entitled to permanent alimony for her

sustenance. Be it stated, while granting perman ent

alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there

cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon

the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the

financial capacity of the husband and other obligations.

In Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar [(2011) 13 SCC

112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] (SCC p. 116, para 12) while

dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, this Court

has observed that while granting permanent alimony, the

court is required to take note of the fact that the amount of

maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can

live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the

mode of life she was used to when she lived with her

husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be

excessive or affect the living condition of the other party.

46. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. [(2021) 2 SCC 324]

the Hon’ble Apex Court has extensively dealt with the issue of

granting interim/permanent alimony and has categorically held

that the objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to

ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution

or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not

as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

19

formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the Court while

considering the issue of maintenance, should consider the

factors like the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the

wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated

and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any

independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient

to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was

accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant

was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working

during the subsistence of the marriage, for ready reference the

relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as

under:

“77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony

is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to

destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the

marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse.

There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of

maintenance to be awarded.

78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia

are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife

and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated

and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any

independent source of income; whether the income is

sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of

living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home;

whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage;

whether she was working during the subsistence of the

marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her

employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child

rearing, and looking after adult members of the family;

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

20

reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. [ Refer

to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7

SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar,

(2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290]

79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish

Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC

(Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the

parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while

determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of

interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that

the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent

income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a

claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could

support herself. The court must take into consideration the

status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay

for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon

factual situations; the court should mould the claim for

maintenance based on various factors brought before it.

80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the

husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his

own maintenance, and dependent family members whom

he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any,

would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive

at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The

court must have due regard to the standard of living of the

husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high

costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not

possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve

him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-

bodied and has educational qualifications.

[ReemaSalkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 :

(2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]

81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all

relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance

in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of

the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant

was accustomed to in h er matrimonial home.

[Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

21

(Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount

awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either

of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife

should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive

and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so

meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of

the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to

maintain herself with reasonable comfort.

47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v.

Neha (supra), 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, which

specific emphasis on permanent alimony and the same has

been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Jyot

Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel reported in 2024 SCC OnLine

SC 1724.

48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Jyot

Maini (supra), while discussing the husband's obligation to

maintain the wife and the importance of his financial capacity

in deciding the quantum, observed under para 26 that:-

"26. Furthermore, the financial capacity of the husband is

a critical factor in determining permanent alimony. The

Court shall examine the husband's actual income,

reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and any

dependents he is legally obligated to support. His liabilities

and financial commitments are also to be considered to

ensure a balanced and fail maintenance award. The court

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

22

must consider the husband's standard of living and the

impact of inflation and high living costs. Even if the

husband claims to have no source of income, his ability

to earn, given his education and qualifications, is to be

taken into account. The courts shall ensure that the

relief granted is fair, reasonable, and consistent with

the standard of living to which the aggrieved party was

accustomed. The court's approach should be to balance

all relevant factors to avoid maintenance amounts that are

either excessively high or unduly low, ensuring that the

dependent spouse can live with reasonable comfort post-

separation."

49. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pravin

Kumar Jain v. 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. 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 Parmar ,

and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal."

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

23

50. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan [2025 SCC

OnLine SC1259] has enhanced the amount of alimony

subject to increase of alimony in every two years.

51. This Court has considered the factual aspect of the

said case and on perusal of the fact, referred therein, it is

evident that in the said case, the appellant -wife and

respondent-husband were married on 18.06.1997. A son was

born to them on 05.08.1998. In July 2008, the respondent-

husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under

Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking

dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty allegedly

inflicted by the appellant-wife. Subsequently, the appellant-

wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 in the same suit under

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim

maintenance for herself and the minor son. The Trial Court,

by order dated 14.01.2010, awarded interim maintenance of

Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 10,000/-

towards litigation expenses. The appellant -wife then

instituted Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of

the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial

Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the respondent-

husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the

appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son,

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

24

along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Trial

Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the

matrimonial suit, finding that the respondent-husband had

failed to prove cruelty. Aggrieved, the respondent filed FAT No.

122 of 2015 before the High Court of Calcutta. During the

pendency of the appeal, the appellant-wife filed CAN No. 4505

of 2025 seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/ - for

herself and Rs. 20,000/- for the son, along with Rs. 50,000/-

towards litigation expenses. The High Court, by order dated

14.05.2015, directed the respondent-husband to pay interim

maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Subsequently, by

order dated 14.07.2016, the High Court noted that the

respondent-husband was drawing a net monthly salary of Rs.

69,000/- and enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs.

20,000/- per month. Finally, the High Court, by the impugned

order dated 25.06.2019, allowed the respondent's appeal,

granted a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty

and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and directed the

respondent-husband to redeem the mortgage on the flat

where the appellant-wife was residing and transfer the title

deed to her name by 31.08.2019; allowed the appellant-wife

and their son to continue residing in the said flat; and

continue to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000/ - per

month to the appellant-wife, subject to a 5% increase every

three years. Additionally, the High Court directed payment of

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

25

educational expenses for the son's university education and

Rs. 5,000/- per month for private tuition.

52. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the

appellant-wife approached the Hon’ble Apex Court.

53. The Hon’ble Apex Court, by interim order dated

07.11.2023, noting the absence of representation on behalf of

the respondent-husband despite proof of service, enhanced

the monthly maintenance to Rs. 75,000/- with effect from

01.11.2023. The respondent-husband subsequently entered

appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the

said interim order.

54. The appellant-wife contended that the amount of

Rs.20,000/- per month, which the High Court made final, was

originally awarded as interim maintenance. She submitted

that the respondent-husband has a monthly income of

approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- and the quantum of alimony

awarded is not commensurate with the standard of living

maintained by the parties during the marriage.

55. In response, the respondent-husband submitted that

his current net monthly income is Rs. 1,64,039/-, earned

from his employment at the Institute of Hotel Management,

Taratala, Kolkata. He has placed on record salary slips, bank

statements, and income tax returns for the year 2023-2024.

It is further stated that he was earlier employed with the Taj

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

26

Hotel, drawing a gross annual salary of Rs. 21,92,525/-. He

also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs.

1,72,088/-, and that he has remarried, has a dependent

family, and aged parents. The respondent-husband contends

that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially

dependent.

56. The Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of the quantum

of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court has come to the

conclusion that it requires revision. The said revision is on the

basis of the respondent -husband's income, financial

disclosures, and past earnings which establish that he is in a

position to pay a higher amount. The Hon’ble Apex Court has

observed that the appellant-wife, who has remained

unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of

maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she

enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures

her future. It has also been observed, the inflationary cost of

living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole

means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the

amount.

57. Therefore, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, a sum

of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable

to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. The said

amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

27

years. As regards the son, now aged 26, the Hon’ble Apex

Court has expressed its view that the Court is not inclined to

direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is

open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him

with educational or other reasonable expenses. It has been

clarified that the son's right to inheritance remains

unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may

be pursued in accordance with law.

58. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order of

the High Court was modified to the extent that the permanent

alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs. 50,000/-

per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, for ready

reference the relevant paragraph of the said order is being

quoted as under:

“7. Having considered the submissions and materials on

record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent

alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The

respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and

past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a

higher amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained

unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level

of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she

enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures

her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and

her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of

financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.

8. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per

month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial

stability for the appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject

to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

28

son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further

mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the

respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with

educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that

the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any

claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in

accordance with law.

9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The

impugned order of the High Court is modified to the extent

that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife

shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase

every two years, as noted above.”

59. Further it needs to refer herein that in maintenance

proceedings it is of primary importance that the income of the

spouse is first assessed. Such assessment of income may be

of two kinds. In cases where documentary evidence such as

salary slips, bank statements, or income tax returns are

available, the Court can take the actual income as discernible

from the record. However, in many cases, husband either fail

to disclose his true income, conceal relevant details, or claim

to be unemployed despite indications to the contrary. In such

circumstances, the Courts must make a reasonable and fair

assessment of the husband’s income, taking into account his

educational qualifications, professional background, past

employment, lifestyle, bank transactions, and other material

placed on record.

60. Once the income, whether actual or notional, is

determined, the Court must then proceed to apportion the

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

29

same among the dependents, including the wife and any

children, keeping in view their reasonable needs and standard

of living. Therefore, assessing income is the first and most

crucial step, as maintenance cannot be determined in

vacuum. Only after establishing what the earning spouse

actually earns, or can reasonably be expected to earn, can a

just and proportionate amount be fixed towards the

sustenance of those who are entitled to be maintained.

61. The grant of maintenance ensures that a woman is

not forced to rely on her parents or relatives for basic needs,

but can live with dignity and autonomy. Only when adequate

maintenance is granted, she can hope to secure independent

accommodation, meet her daily expenses and denying or

reducing maintenance on the assumption that her parents

can support her effectively undermines the very purpose of

law of maintenance, which seeks to protect a deserted or

destitute spouse from financial helplessness. The duty to

maintain a wife rests primarily on the husband, in case she is

not earning for herself, and cannot be diluted on the ground

that she is presently living with her parents or that her

parents have means to assist her.

62. In every proceeding of determination of alimony,

there are two sides to a human story- that of the wife and that

of the husband. Each brings forth a version shaped by their

experiences, grievances, and perceptions. It is the duty of the

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

30

Court to assess these narratives not mechanically but

pragmatically, and to arrive at a conclusion that is grounded

in both evidence and social reality.

63. Thus, the principle governing grant of permanent

alimony is that it must be fair, reasonable, and commensurate

with the status of the parties, the income and capacity of the

husband, and the needs of the wife. The Court cannot impose

an amount which is beyond the paying capacity of the

husband, nor can it leave the wife without adequate financial

security.

64. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of

law this Court is now re-adverting to the factual aspects of the

instant case.

65. It is admitted fact that the marriage between the

petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 28.12.2016

according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Nehru Nagar

Gurudwara, Bhilai, District Durg, Chattisgarh and the

respondent-husband has filed the suit for divorce on

04.09.2024 i.e., after 08 years of marriage, on the ground of

cruelty and desertion.

66. The suit filed for divorce by the respondent-husband

has been allowed, against which the present appeal has been

filed.

67. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the parties,

on instruction, has submitted that there is no chance of re-

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

31

union since the respondent/husband is adamant not to live

with the appellant-wife.

68. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted

that since the respondent/husband is adamant not to live

with the appellant-wife and did not want to live with her, as

such the parties agreed for settlement by way of permanent

alimony.

69. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-husband has canvassed that the issue of

permanent alimony ought to be adjudicated by the learned

Family Court, and hence the matter be relegated to the

original forum for determination thereof.

70. In this context, it is apposite to advert to Section 25

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which expressly confers

jurisdiction upon the Court to grant permanent alimony and

maintenance at the time of passing a decree of dissolution of

marriage.

71. It is indisputable that while adjudicating upon

dissolution of marriage, evidence is adduced, and

simultaneously the Family Court is vested with competence

to determine the quantum of alimony necessary for the

sustenance of the spouse who suffers separation consequent

upon such decree.

72. Reference must be made to the authoritative

pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v.

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

32

Neha (supra), wherein comprehensive guidelines and

procedural parameters have been delineated for assessing the

quantum of alimony. The said guidelines, already adverted to

in the preceding paragraphs, constitute binding precedent

and must govern the present adjudication.

73. Insofar as the submission advanced on behalf of the

respondent-husband that the issue of alimony be remitted to

the Family Court is concerned, we are unable to accede

thereto. Once the Apex Court has prescribed the format of

affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities for both parties,

the determination of alimony must proceed on the basis of

such affidavits, without relegating the matter afresh.

74. The legislative object underlying Section 25 is

sustenance of the separated spouse. To remit the matter

back, as prayed, would inflict further trauma upon the

appellant-wife, who has already endured the rigours of

litigation since 2019 culminating in dissolution of marriage.

75. Remand to the Family Court would not only be

dilatory but also oppressive for the appellant-wife, prolonging

her ordeal unnecessarily.

76. From the order dated 29 June 2026, it is manifest

that learned counsel for the respondent had agreed to

determination of alimony and even offered a sum of

₹25,00,000/-, which was duly recorded in the said order,

though not accepted by learned counsel for the

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

33

appellant-wife, for ready reference, the order dated 29

th June,

2026 is being referred herein :-

“10/Dated:29

th

June, 2026

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. As a last resort, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent has submitted that his client

is ready for settlement at the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-

(Rs.Twenty Five Lakhs) by way of lump sum amount which

has not been agreed by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned senior

counsel appearing for the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has sought

for a week’s time to interact with his client on the issue of

enhancement of the said amount.

4. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the respondent,

list this case on 07.07.2026.”

77. The pivotal question that arises is whether, once this

Court has proceeded to determine the issue of alimony on the

basis of the consent recorded from learned counsel for the

respondent in the various orders referred hereinabove, it

remains open to the respondent at this stage to seek

relegation of the matter to the Family Court for adjudication

of alimony. In our considered view, such a course is

impermissible.

78. It is further pertinent to note that affidavits in terms

of the directions of this Court have already been filed, and at

that juncture no plea for remand was advanced. Indeed, from

the order dated 29 June 2026, it is evident that learned

counsel for the respondent-husband unequivocally submitted

that the respondent was prepared to pay a sum of

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

34

₹25,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony. In light of this

recorded statement, the contention now urged—that the issue

be remitted to the Family Court—cannot be countenanced

and is liable to be rejected.

79. In order to adjudicate upon the quantum of

permanent alimony, this Court has meticulously examined

the affidavit filed by the respondent-husband. It is disclosed

therein that the respondent is engaged in business as sole

proprietor of Indian Trading Company, which undertakes

supply of motor parts and allied equipment. The affidavit

furnishes particulars of his movable assets and is

accompanied by the Income Tax Return for the Assessment

Year 2025-26, thereby evidencing his financial worth and

capacity.

80. It has been stated in the affidavit that the

respondent’s monthly income is Rs.1,80,000/ - which is

supported by his Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year

2025-26.

81. The respondent has also annexed documents

showing repayment of loan which he has obtained for his

personal and official use. He has shown total loan of Rs.

1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakhs)

approximately and the total EMI which he pays is

Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eight Thousand) per

month.

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

35

82. The affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Chaibasa contains a notarized affidavit given by the

respondent-husband wherein he has stated that against a

loan of Rs.11,57,998/- which has been taken for purchase of

Hyundai Creta car an EMI of Rs.23,204/- is being paid but

that amount is being paid by his brother-in-law since the said

vehicle is being used by him.

83. Considering this statement of the respondent -

husband to be true, then also the total loan against his name

come to Rs.1,18,00,000/- approximately and the monthly

repayment (EMI) comes to Rs.2,56,000/- approximately.

84. Now the question arises that when the respondent

has stated that he has monthly income of Rs.1,80,000/- how

can he deposit the monthly installment of Rs.2,56,000/ -

towards repayment of loan. From the documents annexed

with the affidavit, it is also evident that the respondent has

not defaulted in making repayment of loan.

85. From the documents available on record, it is also

evident that 90% of the total loan has been procured after

filing of the suit for dissolution of marriage.

86. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that

the respondent-husband has not shown his actual income in

the affidavit and his actual income is much more than what

he has stated in his affidavit.

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

36

87. At this juncture it needs to refer herein the settled

position of law that the impact of a loan taken by a husband

for "future wealth construction" during the pendency of a

matrimonial suit which consequently reduces his total income

due to loan payments, on the amount of alimony payable to

his wife is a matter that courts scrutinize carefully. Generally,

such voluntary financial commitments are not permitted to

diminish the husband's primary obligation to maintain his

wife.

88. The husband's duty to maintain his wife is

paramount. Any voluntary financial liability, such as a loan

for "future wealth construction," should not be allowed to

diminish this fundamental duty. The wife's right to

maintenance is often considered paramount. The court will

scrutinize the genuineness and purpose of the loan. If the loan

is taken primarily to reduce disposable income and thereby

evade maintenance obligations, or if the "future wealth

construction" is speculative or solely for the husband's benefit

without any direct or indirect benefit to the wife or children,

the court may disregard the reduction in income caused by

EMI payments.

89. Courts often consider not just the actual income but

also the earning capacity of the husband. If the loan is

perceived as a deliberate act to reduce visible income despite

a healthy earning capacity, the court may fix maintenance

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

37

based on his potential earnings rather than his artificially

reduced net income. Courts have consistently held that

voluntary deductions or liabilities incurred by the husband,

which are not necessary for his sustenance or statutory

obligations, cannot be used to reduce maintenance payable to

the wife. Repayments of loans, particularly those for asset

creation, are considered voluntary capital investments rather

than essential or unavoidable expenditures.

90. In the case of Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, (2026)

INSC 370 the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically observed

that deductions arising from financial commitments such as

loan repayments, particularly when they contribute towards

the creation of assets, cannot be treated on the same footing

as necessary expenditure to substantially reduce the

husband's liability for maintenance. The Court emphasized

that the liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation

and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.

It clarified that repayments of loans, especially those resulting

in the creation or acquisition of assets, partake in the

character of capital investment and cannot be equated with

essential or unavoidable expenditure. Such financial

commitments, being voluntary in nature, cannot be given

precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable

obligation of maintenance. For ready reference the relevant

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

38

paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted as

under:

“13. However, deductions arising out of financial

commitments such as loan repayments, particularly where

they contribute towards creation of assets, cannot be placed

on the same footing as necessary expenditure so as to

substantially reduce the liability of maintenance. The

liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation and

cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.

14. It is also not in dispute that the appellant ha no

independent source of income and has been residing

separately shortly after the marriage. The maintenance

awarded must therefore enable her to sustain herself with

a reasonable degree of dignity, consistent with the status of

the parties. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that

the determination remains fair and reasonable and does not

impose an excessive burden upon the respondent. The

exercise is one of achieving a just balance between

competing considerations.

15. Insofar as the financial capacity of the respondent is

concerned, it is borne out from the compliance affidavit filed

pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2026 that the respondent

is employed as a Manager with Canara Bank and is

drawing a gross monthly income of ₹1,15,670/-. The Courts

below have taken note of certain deductions from the said

income, including repayments towards loans. However, it

is well settled that repayments of loans, particularly

where such repayments result in creation or

acquisition of assets, partake the character of

capital investment and cannot be equated with

essential or unavoidable expenditure. Such financi al

commitments, being voluntary in nature, cannot be

accorded precedence over the statutory and legally

enforceable obligation of maintenance.

16. The obligation of the husband to maintain his

spouse is a primary and continuing duty, which must

be discharged in a manner that enables the wife to

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

39

live with dignity and in a standard commensurate

with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the

marriage. Viewed thus, deductions on account of

asset-generating repayments cannot be permitted to

substantially dilute the respondent’s real earning

capacity for the purpose of determining

maintenance.

91. Based on the consistent judicial pronouncements,

particularly the Supreme Court's ruling in Deepa Joshi v.

Gaurav Joshi (supra) a loan taken by the husband for "future

wealth construction" during the pendency of a matrimonial

suit, which reduces his income, will generally not affect the

amount of alimony to the wife adversely. Courts view such

loans as voluntary financial commitme nts or capital

investments that cannot take precedence over the husband's

primary and statutory obligation to maintain his wife. The

court will assess the husband's actual earning capacity and

ensure that the wife receives adequate maintenance

commensurate with her needs and the marital standard of

living.

92. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid,

is of the view that the respondent-husband has constant

source of income but the appellant-wife is to survive on the

amount of interest to be received from the amount of

permanent alimony and the future inflation etc. is also

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

40

required to be kept in mind before allowing the permanent

alimony.

93. The appellant-wife, as per her affidavit, is only 36

years of age and taking into consideration the life expectancy

of a female in India is 70 years approximately and, therefore,

the permanent alimony is to be calculated for next 34 years.

94. The learned Family Court, in Original Maintenance

Case No.9 of 2020 has awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/-

per month and if Rs.10,000/- per month is calculated for next

34 years, it would come to Rs.40,00,000/- approximately.

95. This Court, upon due consideration of the rival

submissions and the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex

Court as adverted to hereinabove, has once again scrutinized

the affidavit filed by the respondent -husband. The

respondent, being a businessman and sole proprietor of

Indian Trading Company , has disclosed his financial

particulars and produced acknowledgment of filing of Income

Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2025 -2026. From the

said material, it emerges that the respondent’s actual annual

income is ₹21,68,774/- per year. Conversely, the

appellant-wife is left to subsist solely upon the quantum of

permanent alimony to be awarded, her livelihood being

entirely dependent thereon.

96. This Court is conscious that the respondent -

husband is also to survive and he has other liability and

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

41

responsibility but it is also his utmost duty to maintain the

standard of life of the appellant-wife, she would have enjoyed

during subsistence of the marriage as per income and status

of her husband, the respondent herein.

97. It needs to refer herein that there is no rigid

mathematical formula to determine maintenance. However,

the Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey

Chowdhury (Supra) observed that around 25 per cent of the

husband's net salary may serve as a reasonable benchmark,

though this is not a universal rule. Courts generally assess

the paying spouse's "free income", allowing deductions only

for statutory liabilities such as income tax or provident fund,

while disregarding voluntary expenses like equated monthly

instalments (EMIs) on loans or insurance premiums.

98. This Court, taking life expectancy of the wife and the

status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of

the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for

his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to

maintain under the law and statute vis-à-vis the fact that the

amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as

she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and

mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her

husband, is of the view that a minimum amount of Rs. 30

lakhs would be just and proper for her sustenance.

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

42

99. In regard to the future welfare of the minor daughter,

aged about eight years, particularly her education and health,

it has been averred in the affidavit filed by the appellant-wife

that the child is suffering from the ailment of urticaria

occasioned by dust allergies. Having given anxious

consideration to the matter, this Court is of the considered

view that a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh only)

shall be secured by the respondent in the form of a fixed

deposit, to be created in the name of the said daughter, within

a period of one year from the date of this order so as to

safeguard her interests.

100. This amount balances the financial capacity of the

husband with the legitimate entitlement of the wife to secure

the future of the minor daughter and appellant-wife, who has

no other source of income other than the amount of alimony

so received from the respondent-husband for their livelihood

and sustenance.

101. In view of the admitted position that, through the

intervention of well-wishers, a settlement had earlier been

arrived at between the parties, pursuant whereto the

respondent-husband paid a sum of ₹10,00,000/- by way of

demand drafts/cheques, which the appellant-wife accepted

and encashed, therefore, it is hereby directed that the

respondent-husband shall pay a further sum of ₹20,00,000/-,

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

43

out of the total ₹30,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to

the appellant-wife.

102. The aforesaid sum of ₹20,00,000/- shall be

disbursed by the respondent -husband in four equal

instalments within a period of twelve months from the date of

this order. The first instalment shall be paid within two

months from today, and the remaining instalments shall

follow at equal intervals thereafter.

103. Further, the respondent shall also ensure that the

instrument of fixed deposit amounting to Rs.30,00,000/-

(Rupees Thirty Lakhs only), created in the name of the minor

daughter pursuant to the directions of this Court, is duly

handed over to the appellant within a period of one year.

104. This Court, upon consideration of the factual matrix

of the case, and particularly bearing in mind that the financial

constraints faced by the respondent-wife ought not to imperil

the sustenance of either herself or the minor daughter, grants

liberty to the respondent-wife that, in the event the aforesaid

amount is not credited to her account or the fixed deposit is

not duly created in the name of the daughter in terms of the

directions herein, she shall be at liberty to seek appropriate

relief before a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance

with law.

105. This Court, however, entertains the hope and trust

that the respondent husband shall not occasion any default

2026:JHHC:23501 -DB

44

or invite such situation and will scrupulously abide by the

directions herein issued for payment of permanent alimony in

favour of the appellant-wife.

106. Accordingly, the order dated 25

th March 2025 and the

decree drawn on 5

th April 2025 by the learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in

Original Suit No. 81 of 2024, stand modified to the extent

indicated hereinabove, so as to incorporate the directions of

this Court with respect to permanent alimony.

107. In light of the foregoing directions and observations

recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed of

and decreed in the terms set forth, with the modification of

the impugned judgment and decree to the extent indicated.

108. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands

disposed of.

I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)

Dated: 06/08/2026

Birendra/A.F.R.

Uploaded on 07.08.2026