2026:JHHC:23473-DB

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F.A. No.100 of 2023

Anjali Kumari @ Anjali Devi aged about 33 years daughter

of Upendra Paswan, Wife of Sunil Kumar Paswan resident

of Tilouthu, P.O. and P.S. Tilouthu, District Rohtas Bihar

…Appellant/Defendant

Versus

1. Sunil Kumar Paswan Son of Sudheshwar Paswan

resident of Purna Chatra, P.O. and P.S. Tatisliwai,

District Ranchi.

2. IG-cum-PCSC/RPF/GPF-43, S.E.Railway, P.O. & P.S. –

1, Taratola Road, Kolkata, PIN- 700024

… …Respondent/Plaintiff

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate

Mr. Nilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate

For the UOI : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to ASGI

----------------------------

CAV/Reserved on 10.07.2026 Pronounced on 06/08/2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

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

Act, 1984 is directed against order/judgment dated

29.01.2018 and decree signed on 06.02.2018 passed by the

learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court,

Ranchi in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 86 of 2016, whereby

and whereunder the learned Additional Principal Judge has

allowed the suit filed by the petitioner/respondent herein

under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for

grant of decree of divorce.

Brief facts of the case:

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

2

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the

original suit, needs to be referred herein reads, which reads

as under:

3. The marriage between the parties where solemnized on

14.07.2013 before the Marriage Registrar, Sasaram and

subsequently on 22.01.2014 under Hindu Rights and

Rituals at Village Tilouthu, District Rohtas Bihar in presence

of friend and relatives of both the parties and the marriage

was duly consummated. Out of the said wedlock and

consummation of marriage, the appellant gave birth to male

child on 08.04.2015.

4. It is the case of the petitioner-husband that at the time of

marriage gold ornaments worth Rs.85,000/ - was given by

the husband to the wife. After marriage she came to her

matrimonial home and stayed their properly for only three

days. It is alleged that thereafter appellant-wife demanded to

go to her father's house which resulted in quarrel between

the parties. However, somehow the plaintiff-husband

managed to let her understand and then left for his place of

work at Kharagpur, West Bengal.

5. It is further case of the petitioner-husband, the respondent

herein that the appellant-wife without informing any one of

her in-laws family, behind the back of the plaintiff, on

27.01.2014 called her father and brother Prince and become

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

3

adamant to leave her in-laws house, that too without any

reason. On coming to know about the activity of the

defendant, the plaintiff called her on phone, whereupon she

started saying that she does not want to live with her in-laws

and wants to go to Kharagpur. The act of the defendant

compelled the plaintiff to take her there. However, just

staying for 10-11 days the defendant had dehydration and

was admitted in railway hospital. The plaintiff on seeing the

physical condition of the defendant deteriorating, called his

mother and brother to look after her. But the defendant after

returning from the hospital started quarrelling with the

plaintiff. The defendant-wife on getting fully cured called her

father on 27.04.2014 and went to her father's home. The

defendant on being asked by the plaintiff the reason for

leaving for her house, she simply put the unwarranted

blame upon the plaintiff and his family members and

straight away denied living with him. It was repeatedly

threatened by the defendant and her family members to

implicate the plaintiff and entire family in a false case. The

plaintiff in order to save his matrimonial life as well as to

save the reputation of his family, went to Tilauthu on

18.06.2014 to bring her back. He repeatedly begged before

the defendant and his in-laws to allow her to go with him.

However, only on the condition that she will stay at

Kharagpur, she sent with the plaintiff. But again after

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

4

passing of 1½ month she again started putting pressure

upon the plaintiff, that she wants to go to her father's home

and if he doesn't allow her then she will commit suicide. On

04.08.2014, while the plaintiff was on escort duty at Tata, he

received a call from his father-in-law that the defendant has

fled away from his home. He immediately informed his

friends Amit Kumar Prasad and Mukesh Kumar Das to

search her and finally she was recovered from a telephone

booth 2KM away from his quarter. When the plaintiff

returned from his duty and asked the reason about the

above incident she started quarreling with him, she even cut

her hand with her bangle. At about 11 PM she told that she

has consumed all the medicines which were on the table and

she is going to die, hence allow to her talk with her family,

which the plaintiff did and with the help of his friends

admitted her in railway hospital. In the hospital at

Kaharapur, he had to execute a bond as the matter was of

committing suicide. On 05.08.2014 defendant’s uncle

Akhilesh Paswan went to Kharagpur and met with the

plaintiff's duty in-charge, where he tried to misguide the

duty in-charge on false and fabricate grounds against the

plaintiff. After the above incident the plaintiff along with the

defendant came back to Ranchi and called his in-law for a

meeting. Instead of resolving the matter the defendant's

elder sister, father, brother prince and his friend came on

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

5

22.08.2014 and took her with them. Plaintiff contacted her

on phone. On which she threatened that she is not going to

join him and will implicate him and his entire family in false

case. At that time she was carrying one month pregnancy.

That on 20.09.2014 the plaintiff along with his father and

mother went to his in-laws home to fetch, the defendant

back but she flatly refused, as a result, plaintiff parents

return to Ranchi and the plaintiff stayed there in a hotel

with a hope that she will come with him. Finally on being

convinced by the neighbors and the plaintiff, she return to

Ranchi but both of them came out of the bus at Katatoli Bus

Stand, the defendant tried to flee away. Somehow plaintiff

managed to take her home at Tatisilway. The defendant

while staying her plaintiff's house at once tried to flee away

and when she was restrained she cut her hand with her

bangles and hit her abdomen with the bottle filled with

water, which caused heavy pain. She was taken to doctor,

where she was advised for complete bed rest. On 27.02.2015

the defendant’s father and grand-mother came to Ranchi

with an intend to take her back but the plaintiff somehow

restrained them from doing so. On the very night of

27/28.02.2015, the defendant again started h itting her

abdomen and due to severe pain she was taken to Dr.

Geetanjali on 28.02.2015. At Dr. Geetanjali's dispensary, the

plaintiff went to an ATM for taking out some money and

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

6

when return he found that the defendant is missing. The

plaintiff apprehended some mishappening, informed his

family member and his friends and went to Tatisilway police

station, where he found his father-in-law lodging complaint

against the plaintiff and his family members that they have

killed the defendant. Against that complain the officer-in-

charge of Tatilsilway police station went to the plaintiff's

house and threatened them that if within 48 hours the

defendant was not trashed out then they (plaintiff and his

family members) will be put behind bars. Due to the above

incident, the entire family members of the plaintiff came

under tremendous shock and was apprehending something

wrong. The plaintiff in his house found that the defendant

had taken away all her ornaments along with Rs.20,000/ -

with her. On 01.03.2015 the defendant's father instead of

informing the plaintiff that she has reached home safely,

informed the Tatisilway police from where the plaintiff came

to know about the safe arrival of the defendant. Since the

date of the above incident the plaintiff and his family

members where under apprehension that the defendant and

her family members may cause harm to them in any

manner, due to staying out for a long period from duty, the

plaintiff was thrashed by his seniors to sacked from the

service, which has put the plaintiff under mental tension.

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

7

6. It is further case of the petitioner-husband that the

defendant-wife while staying at her in-law home at Ranchi,

was never being cordial with any one of the family members

of the plaintiff. She used to rebuke the plaintiff and his

family members in filthy language, sometime she used to

come out the house shouting on the plaintiff and his family

members in presence of the neighbors, she got no respect for

any of the family members of the plaintiff.

7. There has been a repeated mental torture from the end of

the defendant and her family members towards the plaintiff,

which have put the plaintiff under mental depression.

However, the plaintiff with a hope to live a peaceful

matrimonial life, all the time tried to convince the defendant

but she never respected his emotions and shattered all his

hopes.

8. Further statement has been made that the plaintiff and the

defendant lastly resided husband and wife till 28.02.2015

when the defendant without information fled away and never

returned.

9. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiff-husband, the

respondent herein, had filed the suit wherein prayer had

been made to pass a decree for dissolution of marriage in

favour of the petitioner/ respondent herein.

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

8

10. Before the family court, on being noticed, the respondent-

wife/ appellant herein appeared but did not file written

statement, as such the learned Additional Family Court

debarred the respondent-wife from filing written statement.

11. The petitioner-husband adduced evidence in support of his

case before the Family Court.

12. The learned family court, allowed the suit filed by the

petitioner-husband filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce.

13. The respondent-wife (appellant herein) being aggrieved with

the order passed by the learned family court has approached

this Court by filing the instant appeal.

14. On being noticed by this Court, the respondent-husband has

appeared and contested the appeal.

15. It would be apt to mention herein that while the matter was

being heard by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court

on 20.03.2025, submission has been made by learned

counsel for the appellant-wife that since no permanent

alimony has been awarded in favour of the

husband/respondent herein while granting a decree of

divorce in favour of the respondent, it will suffice if

permanent alimony is worked out by consultation with the

parties.

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

9

16. Further, the Co -ordinate Bench, considering the

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties,

has observed that since respondent-husband has already

solemnized another marriage and the impugned judgment

does not indicate that the question of permanent alimony

was considered and in view of the fair suggestion advanced

by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, direction

was passed for appearance of appellant and the respondent

on the next date of hearing. For ready reference, order dated

20.03.2025 is quoted as under:

“It has been submitted by Mr. Hemant Kumar

Shikarwar, learned counsel for the appellant that since no

permanent alimony has been awarded in favour of the

appellant while granting a decree of divorce in favour of the

respondent, it will suffice if permanent alimony is worked out

by consultation with the parties.

Mr. Anukul Gaurav, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent husband submits that he has to take instructions

in this matter.

In view of the fact that the respondent has already

solemnized another marriage and the impugned judgment

does not indicate that the question of permanent alimony was

considered and in view of the fair suggestion advanced by the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we direct that the

appellant and the respondent to be physically present before

us on 23.04.2025 at 10:30 a.m.

List this case on 23.04.2025.

Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned

counsel for the respective parties.”

17. When the matter was taken up on 23

rd April, 2025, the

parties have submitted that they are ready for settlement in

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

10

terms of permanent alimony but the amount of money which

was offered by the respondent-husband was not agreeable to

the appellant-wife for her survival and survival of son aged

about 10 years born out of the wedlock of appellant and

respondent.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant drawing attention of the

Court that the respondent-husband is working in RPF under

the Indian Railways and as such prayer was made to

implead the Indian Railway as party. Accordingly, the matter

was adjourned.

19. When the matter was taken up, the Interlocutory Application

being I.A. No. 5791 of 2025 filed for impleading IG-cum-

PCSC/RPF/GPC -43 S.E. Railway as party-respondent was

pressed.

20. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant

and particularly the fact that even after order having been

passed for payment of maintenance amount under Section

125 Cr.P.C., the same is not being paid and it reached to the

amount more than Rs. 17 lakhs , directed to implead IG-

cum-PCSC/RPF/GPC -43 S.E. Railway as party-respondent

to the proceeding. For ready reference, order dated 22

nd

December, 2025 is quoted as under:

I.A. No. 5791 of 2025:

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

11

1. None presents to represent the respondent, however, Mr.

Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, learned counsel is present on behalf of

the appellant.

2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed in

pursuance of the reference made in the order dated 23rd April,

2025 for impleadment of IG -cum-PCSC/RPF/GPC-43 S.E.

Railway P.O. and P.S. 1, Taratola Road, Kolkata PIN-700024

as respondent No. 2.

3. The reason for filing of impleadment application has been

taken note by this Court in order dated 23rd April, 2025 as

under Paragraph 2 thereof which is referred herein:

“1. Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, learned counsel has

submitted that the appellant-wife is being represented by

him and she is ready for settlement but the amount which

has been offered by the respondent-husband is a meagre

amount, i.e., to the tune of Rs.2 lakh but subsequently,

Rs.5 lakhs has been offered.

2. It has been submitted that the age of the appellant is 31

years and she is having with a male child having the age

of 10 years and she is having no means of income.

Submission has also been made that the respondent

husband is working in the RPF under the Indian Railways

and is getting a handsome salary. Therefore, it is not the

case of survival of the wife rather survival of the male

child as also the future avenues are involved, therefore.

She is not agreeing with the said meagre amount of Rs.5

lakh.

3. The prayer has been made, in view of the aforesaid

backdrop, that liberty may be given to file an application

for impleadment of the appointing authority.

4. Considering the said submission, the matter is being

adjourned to be listed on 05.05.2025 so that the

application as per the prayer made by the appellant, be

filed on or before the next date of hearing.”

4. The further reason, as per the submission made by Mr.

Shikarwar, learned counsel for the appellant is that even the

maintenance amount as was directed to be paid by passing

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

12

an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. now has amounted to Rs.

17 lakhs and 10 thousand has also not been paid as yet.

5. Considering the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view

that IGcum-PCSC/RPF/GPC-43 S.E. Railway P.O. and P.S. 1,

Taratola Road, Kolkata PIN-700024 is to be impleaded as

party. 6. As such, the instant interlocutory application being

I.A. No. 5791 of 2025 stands allowed and disposed of.

7. Let the necessary addition be made in the arrays of the

respondent.

8. Let notice be issued upon the newly impleaded respondent,

both under ordinary and registered cover with A/D/ Speed

Post, requisites for which to be filed within a week.

9. The Office is directed to take steps for the service of notice.

10. Notice is made returnable on 29th January, 2026.”

21. Accordingly, the matter proceeded and the parties advanced

their arguments.

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant-wife

22. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife showing the conduct

of the respondent-husband has submitted that in the case of

bail application preferred by the respondent-husband before

the Patna High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 41651 of 2016,

bail was granted on 22.09.2016 on the undertaking of

respondent-husband that he is ready to withdraw the

matrimonial suit filed for decree of divorce. On that pretext,

the appellant was assured that the suit filed by her husband

[respondent herein] would be withdrawn and keep ing the

appellant as also the Court in dark, the suit was not

withdrawn rather, it was contested by the respondent -

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

13

husband wherein the learned family Court passed ex-parte

order against the appellant-wife by allowing the suit.

23. Further submission has been made that the appellant-wife,

for the first time, came to know about the decree of divorce

passed in favour of respondent-husband while respondent-

husband was adducing evidence in Maintenance Case No.

35 of 2016 on 08.07.2022, when he stated in his

examination-in-chief that he is ready to keep the appellant

with him if she lives with him properly but in the cross-

examination he has stated that he re-married after getting

divorce.

24. Submission has been made that after playing fraud with the

appellant-wife, since the respondent-husband has re -

married as such now the only grievance remains with

respect to the quantum of permanent alimony considering

the fact that 11 years male child born out of the wedlock of

the appellant and respondent are residing with the

appellant-wife and further the fact that the respondent-

husband is working in Railway Police Force having

handsome salary.

25. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has further submitted

that she has no means to survive along with the son but on

the alimony to be given by the respondent-husband.

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

14

26. Further submission has been made that since for the last 10

years no financial support has been extended by the

respondent-husband, as such she has taken admission of

her son not in a good school rather in a below average school

due to deficiency of fund and even on this also more than

Rs. 3000/- per month she has to spend. At paragraph 7 of

the supplementary affidavit filed by her she has stated that

at present on an average Rs. 25,000/- per month has to

spend on her livelihood and her son.

27. At paragraph 8, she has further deposed that appellant had

borrowed the amount for her month to month expenditure

from her married sisters as a long with a promise to return

the same in future.

28. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that

the learned Family Court, Rohtas Sasaram has passed order

dated 03.05.2025 directing the respondent-husband to pay

Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of

filing of the case i.e., 09.03.2016 but the respondent -

husband has not made payment of the same and only Rs.

45,000/- has been paid till date out of the total arrear of Rs.

17,55,000/- [Seventeen lakhs and fifty five thousand].

29. Further submission has been made that the respondent is

working in the Indian Railway since 2017 i.e, for about 20

years and by this way even the provident fund and other

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

15

savings are there for the respondent’s present necessity and

also for his future necessity besides salary. But the life of the

appellant and their son who is living with the appellant is at

a very pitiable condition.

30. Submission has been made that son is only 11 years old, as

such she has to spend a large chunk of amount on the

education of the son and his other necessity.

31. Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn attention

of the court towards salary slip of the respondent, which is

of the November, 2025, shows that the respondent has gross

salary of Rs.106539/- [One Lakh six thousand five hundred

and thirty nine].

32. On the point of permanent alimony, submission has been

made that the salary of the respondent would increase after

every six months on increase of Dearness Allowance and

every year on account of annual increment and further there

will be anticipated hike in salary is possible due to

forthcoming 8

th Pay-Commission(s) as also on being getting

promotion(s)/ACP/MACP and even after retirement the

respondent-husband would get good amount of retiral

benefit but the appellant-wife and their son, who is living

with his mother, has to survive on the interest earned on the

permanent alimony granted in favour of the appellant.

Therefore, considering the life expectancy of 72 years and

the fact that the appellant-wife is only 35 years of age,

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

16

submission has been made that sufficient one time amount

be awarded which would require for survival of both the wife

and son on the interest earned from that amount.

33. Therefore, submission has been made that considerable

amount of maintenance be directed to be paid to the son as

also the appellant-wife so that they can live in reasonable

comfort considering the status and mode of life they would

have used to live when they lived with respondent-husband.

Submission on behalf of respondent-husband:

34. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-husband has submitted that he tried his best to

keep her wife [appellant] but she fled away to her parental

house on her own and despite several efforts being taken by

him, she did not return.

35. It has further been submitted that after grant of bail by

Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 41651 of 2016, he took

her wife [appellant] with him but again the appellant started

abusing and mentally torturing the petitioner/respondent

and again fled away to her paternal house.

36. Further submission has been made that after getting divorce

from the appellant he performed second marriage as per law.

37. So far as the issue of permanent alimony is concerned,

affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-husband,

wherein it has been stated that he is working as Constable

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

17

in the Railway Protection Force [RPF] and his sole source of

income is the monthly s alary received from the said

employment.

38. Referring to the salary-slip annexed with the affidavit, it is

stated that the respondent’s gross monthly salary is

Rs.1,06,539/-.

39. So far immovable property is concerned, statement has been

made that he has no land; house; flat or plot in his name

nor is he is in possession of any immovable asset.

40. Further submission has been made that he is the sole

bread-earner of his family and his mother, father and his

wife [second wife]; are fully dependent on him. However,

statement has been made that his father is a retired police

personnel and receives a monthly pension of Rs. 21,636/-,

however, in proof thereof no document has been annexed

therewith.

41. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband, has made

statement regarding his liabilities in the affidavit and has

stated that substantial amount of money he has to spend on

monthly rent for accommodation; transportation and for

other household expenditure; monthly medical expenditure

on the family members; liability towards second wife;

additional liabilities towards making expenditure on pending

criminal cases. Besides, at 8 (iv) of the affidavit he has stated

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

18

that currently, he paying Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim

maintenance towards appellant-wife. It has been stated that

in total about Rs. 70,000 - Rs.73,000/- per month

expenditure he has incur on him and on his family members

and very little disposable income at the end of each months

remains.

42. Submission has been made that divorce has already been

granted by learned family court in favour of respondent

herein and from the findings of the impugned order, it is

evident that respondent-husband was not at fault rather the

matrimonial relationship had irretrievably broken down

solely due to the acts and conduct of the wife. Therefore, the

question of grant of permanent may be considered in the

light of findings of the learned Family Court and the conduct

of the appellant-wife.

43. Further submission has been made that appellant-wife is a

healthy and able-bodied person fully capable of maintaining

herself and earning her livelihood and as such she cannot

saddle the husband with an excessive and unreasonable

financial burden particularly when the respondent himself is

surviving on a limited income and supporting multiple

dependents.

Analysis:

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

19

44. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the pleading available on record as also the finding

recorded by learned Additional Principal Judge, Addl. Family

Court, Ranchi and other materials available on record.

45. This Court before proceeding further needs to refer herein

the factual aspect of the matter.

46. Marriage of the parties was solemnized on 14.07.2013. Out

of the said wedlock, one male child was born on 08.04.2015.

47. Ground has been taken by the respondent -husband before

the learned family court for grant of decree of divorce that

the appellant-wife many times leaved his house [matrimonial

house] without consent of the husband and used to put

unwarranted blame upon the respondent-husband and his

family members and repeatedly threatened him and his

family members to implicate in a false case. Further

statement has been made that the respondent-husband take

several steps to restore the marital life but the appellant-wife

did not live with him.

48. Respondent-husband [petitioner before the learned Addl.

Family Court], being aggrieved with the cruelty meted out to

the respondent-husband and his family members, filed suit

before the learned Addl. Family Court, in which, the wife

[appellant herein] appeared but did not file written

statement, as such the suit proceeded ex-parte and decreed

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

20

in favour of respondent-husband by granting decree of

divorce in his favour vide order/judgment dated 29.01.2018

and decree signed on 06.02.2018 passed by the learned

Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi

in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 86 of 2016, against which the

instant appeal has been filed.

49. However, after appearance of the respondent-husband, the

parties have agreed for permanent settlement, in view of the

fact that the respondent-husband has re-married and

accordingly submission has been made in support thereof.

50. 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 son and the wife on

the basis of pleadings available on record and as per the

standard of life they would have enjoyed had they been living

with the respondent?

51. 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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

21

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 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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

22

the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such

manner as the court may deem just].”

52. 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 of 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 live of husband or wife, if

having no sufficient source of income.

53. 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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

23

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.

54. 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

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

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

55. 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:

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

24

“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.”

56. We may note here that an amendment has been brought

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

the Act No. 68 of 1976 with effect from 27

th May 1996. 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 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 amendment 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,

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

25

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, it is

established that the wife has not remained chaste after the

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

Section 25.

57. 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 thatfor 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 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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

26

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.

58. 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 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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

27

stated, 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 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.

59. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr (supra) 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 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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

28

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 acc ustomed 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; 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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

29

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 her

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

(2008) 1 SCC (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.

60. Further, 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 on every two years.

61. This Court has considered the factual aspect of the said case

and on perusal of the fact, referred therein, it is evident that

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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

30

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, 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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

31

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; allow 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 educational expenses for the son's university

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

62. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the

appellant-wife is approached the Hon’ble Apex Court.

63. 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.

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

32

64. The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs. 20,000/-

per month, which the High Court made final, was originally

awarded as interim maintenance. She submits 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.

65. In response, the respondent-husband submits 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

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.

66. 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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

33

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.

67. 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

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 that the son's right to inheritance remains

unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may

be pursued in accordance with law.

68. 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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

34

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 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.”

69. Further it needs to refer herein that in maintenance

proceedings it is of primary importance that the income of

the spouse is first assessed. The process of determining

maintenance cannot begin or end with assumptions and it

must rest on an assessment of the earning capacity of the

person from whom maintenance is sough t. If both spouses

are earning, the income of each must be examined. However,

where the wife is not employed or has no independent

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

35

source of income, the focus naturally shifts to the income of

the husband, which becomes the foundation for fixing the

amount of maintenance payable.

70. 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.

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

determined, the Family Court must then pro ceed to

apportion the 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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

36

fixed towards the sustenance of those who are entitled to be

maintained.

72. The fact that the wife is earning some amount cannot, by

itself, be a ground to deny her claim for maintenance. In the

case of Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha: (2014)

16 SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that

even if the wife is employed and earning, that alone does not

disentitle her to maintenance if her income is insufficient to

enable her to maintain herself with the standard of living

that she enjoyed in the matrimonial hom e. Maintenance,

after all, is not a matter of charity but of right – a continuing

obligation flowing from the marital relationship, which the

husband cannot evade merely by pointing to the wife’s

limited earning capacity.

73. Further, in Manish Jain v. Akanksh a Jain (supra),

which has also been referred to in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra),

the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that the

financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife is

immaterial while determining the quantum of maintenance.

The responsibility to maintain a wife flows from the marital

relationship itself and cannot be shifted upon her parents,

however well-off they may be.

74. The object of law of maintenance is precisely to prevent

such dependence. The grant of maintenance ensures that a

woman is not forced to rely on her parents or relatives for

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

37

basic needs, but can live with dignity and autonomy. Only

when adequate maintenanc e 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.

75. 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 Court to assess these narratives not mechanically but

pragmatically, and to arrive at a conclusion that is grounded

in both evidence and social reality.

76. 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

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

38

the husband, nor can it leave the wife without adequate

financial security.

77. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law

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

instant case.

78. In the instant case herein, in terms of the judgment

rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v.

Neha & Anr., (supra), the affidavit has been filed on behalf

of the respondent-husband annexing therewith the details of

salary, bank statement showing the details of salary and

other perks, annexing therewith the salary slip and bank

statement as also the details of movable and immovable

property.

79. We have perused the affidavit filed by the respondent-

husband wherefrom it is evident that the respondent is

working as Constable in the Railway Protection Force [RPF]

since 2007 i.e., for a long period of 20 years.

80. From the salary slip annexed with the affidavit, it is evident

that the respondent’s gross monthly salary is Rs.1,06,539/-

and net Salary for the month of November, 2025 is

Rs.98631. However, the respondent-husband denied to have

any immovable property in his name.

81. So far liabilities are concerned, submission has been made

that he is the sole bread-earner of his family and his mother,

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

39

father and his wife [second wife]; three younger brothers,

who are un-employed are fully dependent on him.

82. However, statement has been made that his father is a

retired police personnel and receives a monthly pension of

Rs. 21,636/-, but, in proof thereof no document has been

annexed therewith.

83. Besides, at 8 (iv) of the affidavit he has stated that currently,

he paying Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance

towards appellant-wife. However, it has been disputed by the

appellant-wife by saying that she is not getting regular

maintenance. She on affidavit has stated that arrears of

maintenance has mounted to Rs. 17,55,000/- [Seventeen

lakhs and fifty five thousand] and out of that only amount of

Rs. 45,000/- has been paid till date.

84. From the pleadings on record, it is evident that as per

direction learned Family Court, Rohtas Sasaram ,

respondent-husband has been directed to pay Rs.15,000/-

per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the case

i.e., 09.03.2016. But, it is disputed and submission has

been made by learned counsel for the appellant-wife that in

spite of order being passed by the learned Family Court,

Rohtas Sasaram, maintenance amount has not been paid by

the respondent/husband.

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

40

85. As per submission advanced by learned counsel for the

appellant-wife, even taking her life expectancy and

multiplied by the 1/3 of the salary it comes to huge amount

but taking into account the present capacity of the

respondent, for survival of wife and the son born out of their

wedlock, at least an amount to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-

[Thirty lakhs] would be just and proper besides the arrears

of maintenance as accrued as on date.

86. This Court is conscious that the respondent-husband is also

to survive and he has other liability and responsibility but

vis-à-vis it is also his utmost duty to maintain the standard

of life of the appellant-wife and his son, they would have

enjoyed during subsistence of the marriage as per income

and status of her husband-the respondent herein.

87. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court thought it proper that

a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- [Thirty lakhs] as one-time

permanent alimony, would be just, fair and reasonable, for

sustenance of the appellant-wife and the son born out of

their wedlock for their livelihood, sustenance and study.

88. In view of the foregoing, the respondent-husband is directed

to pay a sum of ₹30,00,000 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only),

which shall be discharged in three equal instalments within

a period of twelve months from the date of this order.

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

41

89. This Court further expresses the expectation that arrears of

maintenance, as ordered by the learned Family Court ,

Rohtas at Sasaram, amounting to ₹17,00,000 (Rupees

Seventeen Lakhs only) and odd, as accrued as arrears of

maintenance, shall also be liquidated by the

respondent-husband at the earliest besides the amount of

permanent of alimony as awarded by this Court.

90. It is made explicit that out of the aforesaid sum of

₹30,00,000, the respondent-husband shall cause a fixed

deposit of ₹10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in a

nationalised bank in the name of his son, earmarked for his

education and allied purposes.

91. For abundant clarity, it is declared that the son’s right of

inheritance remains wholly unaffected, and any claim to

ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance

with law.

92. This Court, considering the factual matrix of the case, and

particularly the financial exigencies which may imperil the

sustenance of the appellant-wife and son as well as the

child’s education, grants liberty to the appellant-wife that if

the said amount is not credited to her account, as per the

direction passed by this Court, the appellant-wife will be at

liberty to approach the court of law in accordance with law.

2026:JHHC:23473-DB

42

93. This Court, however, trusts and expects that the

respondent-husband shall not occasion such contingency,

but shall abide by the directions herein for payment of

permanent alimony in favour of the appellant-wife and the

son.

94. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2018 and

decree signed on 06.02.2018 passed by the learned

Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi

in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 86 of 2016 stand modified to

the extent indicated above.

95. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the instant

appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

96. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.

I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

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

6

th August, 2026

Alankar/A.F.R.

Uploaded on 7.08.2026