As per case facts, the petitioner-husband's plea for divorce on grounds of cruelty was dismissed by the Family Court. He filed an appeal, and during the proceedings, both parties initially ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 133 of 2025
----------
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Tarun, aged about 45 years, Son of
Bharat Ram, Resident of-Sarhu, P.O.-Jhargara & P.S.-
Husainabad, Dist.-Palamu (Jharkhand).
Presently Residing at Doctors Quarter, Sadar Hospital,
Posted as Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Garhwa, P.O.
& P.S.-Garhwa, Dist-Garhwa
… … Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
Anita Kumari, Wife of Rakesh Kumar Tarun, Daughter of
Ram Lal Ram, Resident of-Bank Colony, Rajua Kainal
Road ward no.12, Faizalganj, P.O. -Faizalganj, P.S.-
Sasaram, Dist.-Rohtas, (Bihar).
Presently Residing at NTPC Company Ankhora, P.S. -
Nawinagar, Dist-Aurangabad, Bihar
… … Respondent/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Sirvastava, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Gautam, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
----------------------------
CAV on 06.07.2026 Pronounced on 06/08/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts
Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 19.02.2025
and decree signed on 07.03.2025 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original Suit
No.78 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by
the petitioner-husband (appellant herein) for dissolution of
marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
2
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent/wife , has
been dismissed on contest.
2. It appears from the order/judgment impugned that t he
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, after appreciating the
evidence adduced on behalf of parties, came to the
conclusion that the petitioner-husband, the appellant
herein, could not prove the ingredients of cruelty against the
respondent-wife, as such, it was held that the petitioner-
husband is not entitled to get a decree of divorce, against
which, the instant appeal has been preferred.
3. This Court, vide order dated 7
th November, 2025, has issued
notice to the respondent-wife and the respondent has
appeared and contested the appeal.
4. However, learned counsel for the parties, has submitted that
both the parties are willing to live as husband and wife, as
such, the matter may be referred before the Mediator for
mediation.
5. This Court, considering the aforesaid submission, has
referred the matter before the JHALSA for mediation, as
would appear from order dated 28.01.2026, for ready
reference, order dated 28.01.2026 is quoted as under:
“1. The matter has been listed under the heading
“Mediation for the Nation Drive 2.0” so as to
send it before the mediation.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
wife has submitted that she resides in Sasaram and
that there is already a direction by this Court, vide
order dated 26th August, 2025, that upon her
appearance a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - shall be paid
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
3
towards travelling expenses. He has further
submitted that the same may be directed to be paid
in pursuance to the aforesaid order.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
husband submitted that there is no difficulty in
paying the amount, as has been taken note of in the
order dated 25th August, 2025, upon her
appearance before the mediation process.
4. With the consent of the parties, let this matter be
referred to JHALSA, Ranchi, for mediation by
appointing a mediator, as both the parties have
agreed to appear before the mediator on 16th
February, 2026 at 10:30 A.M.
5. Let this matter be listed on 26rd February,
2026 along with the mediation report.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent forthwith to the
learned Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi for the
needful.”
6. Pursuant to order dated 28.01.2026, the matter was referred
for mediation but it appears from the order dated
10.03.2026, as has been submitted by the learned counsel
for the appellant that the respondent-wife is not turning up
regularly for the mediation proceeding.
7. However, learned counsel for the respondent -wife has
submitted that on one occasion, due to examination of the
child, she could not be able to participate in the mediation
proceeding, for ready reference, the said order dated
10.03.2026 is being quoted as under: -
1. Perused the letter dated 24.02.2026 issued under
the signature of the learned Member Secretary,
JHALSA seeking therein the further time, since, the
mediation is still going on.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the respondent-wife is not turning up regularly for the
mediation proceeding.
3. Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the
respondent-wife has submitted that on one occasion,
due to examination of the child, respondent-wife could
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
4
not be able to participate in the mediation proceeding.
4. However, both the parties have jointly submitted that
the period may be extended, since, there is chance of
settlement.
5. Considering the aforesaid fact as also considering
the letter received as under Flag-“X”, further six weeks’
time is allowed awaiting for the mediation report.
6. List this case on 04.05.2026.
8. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 5
th May, 2026 and on
that date, after some argument, learned counsel for the
appellant-husband has submitted that the appellant is ready
to make payment of Rs.40,00,000/- as one time settlement
and also all sorts of expenditure likely to be incurred in the
education etc. of both the children till the placement of the
son as also with respect to marriage of the daughter.
9. The said amount has not been agreed upon by the learned
counsel for the respondent-wife. In view of the above, this
Court reckons that this matter needs to be considered on the
point of alimony. This Court has further directed both the
parties, i.e., the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife
to file affidavits in view of the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Versus Neha &
Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, for ready reference, the
said order dated 05.05.2026 is being quoted hereinbelow: -
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant- husband
has submitted that the appellant-husband is
ready to make payment of Rs.40,00,000/- as
one time settlement and also all sorts of
expenditure likely to be incurred in the
education etc. of both the children till the
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
5
placement of the son as also with respect to
marriage of the daughter.
3. The said amount has not been agreed
upon by learned counsel for the respondent-
wife.
4. In view of the above, this Court reckons
that this matter needs to be considered on the
point of alimony.
5. Let the Trial Court Record be called for
from the learned Court below.
6. Let this matter be listed on 11.06.2026
and in the meantime, affidavits must be filed
by both the parties in view of the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Rajnesh Versus Neha & Anr. reported in
(2021) 2 SCC 324.”
10. Both the parties have filed the affidavits in terms of the order
dated 05.05.2026 passed by this Court and thereafter, the
case has been listed along with the affidavit on 6
th July,
2026.
11. On 06.07.2026, both the parties have argued the case at
length on the issue of alimony and on the said date, the
arguments concluded on behalf of both the parties and the
order was reserved. The order dated 06.07.2026 is being
referred hereinbelow:-
“It is evident from the order dated
05.05.2026 that the case is to be decided
on the issue of alimony.
2. The affidavit in terms of the order
dated 05.05.2026 has been filed on
behalf of both the parties.
3. Learned counsel appearing for both
the parties have argued the case at length
on the issue of alimony.
4. Argument concluded.
5. Order is reserved.”
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
6
12. The question is that when both the parties are not at all
interested to live together then this Court cannot compel
them to live together.
13. However, since the appellant is interested in settling the
dispute in terms of money [permanent alimony], which has
been agreed by learned counsel for the respondent -wife,
therefore, this Court is taking the plea in this regard. But
the amount which has been offered, i.e., Rs.40,00,000/- is
not acceptable to the respondent-wife stating that it is not
sufficient for sustenance of the respondent-wife, son and a
daughter.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has submitted
that he is a Contractual Doctor employed at Sadar Hospital,
Garhwa.
15. It has further been contended that his gross monthly salary
is Rs.1,61,260/- and net monthly take -home salary is
Rs.33,008/- after deduction of monthly loan obligations, i.e.,
Rs.1,28,252/-.
16. It has further been contended that the assertions made by
the respondent-wife regarding the appellant who is running
a highly profitable private clinic and pathology lab, are
completely false, fabricated and fake. No independent
hospital or pathology unit is operational in the name of the
appellant.
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
7
17. It has also been contended that the Maa Parwati Hospital is
owned by Sanjiv Kumar Singh (examined as P.W.3). The
appellant only occasionally attends the facility as an on-call
doctor after completing his statutory government duty.
18. So far immovable property is concerned, submission has
been made that a tract of land was purchased in the year
2005 by the appellant’s father. The property remains
undivided joint-family property.
19. It has been submitted that the appellant had purchased a
land at Garhwa with financial assistance from friends and
relatives, valued at Rs.22,00,000/-. The said land was
acquired specifically for the construction of a hospital under
a charitable Trust, which is currently still under
construction.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
20. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
wife on the offer being made by learned counsel for the
appellant for final settlement by way of permanent alimony,
has submitted that she has no source of income to survive
with her growing two children, namely, Master Kislay Tarun,
aged about 14 years and Kumari Tanya Tarun, aged about
12 years respectively.
21. Further, submission has been made that both the children
are entirely dependent upon the appellant for their day-to-
day needs, education, food, clothing, medical treatment and
overall upbringing.
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
8
22. Submission has been made that due to marital discord and
neglect on the part of the appellant-husband, the respondent
has been compelled to live separately along with her minor
children.
23. It has been submitted that the respondent -wife is a
housewife having no independent source of income
whatsoever. She is unemployed having no business or
agricultural income or other financial resources from which
she can maintain herself and her children.
24. Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn attention
that the appellant is working as a contractual Government
Doctor in Garhwa District and receives regular remuneration
from the Government. From his government engagement, he
is also operating and managing a private pathology
laboratory and diagnostic centre, from which, he earns
substantial additional income. He is also running a private
medical clinic where patients regularly visit for consultation
and treatment.
25. Therefore, submission has been made that considerable
amount of maintenance be directed to be paid to the son ,
daughter as also the respondent-wife so that they can live in
reasonable comfort considering the status and mode of life.
Analysis:
26. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
9
Judge in the impugned judgment, as also, the affidavits filed
on behalf of both the parties.
27. It is evident from material available on record that the
present appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984, arises from the judgment dated 19.02.2025 and
decree signed on 07.03.2025 by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Garhwa in O.S. No.78 of 2020, whereby the
petition filed by the appellant-husband seeking dissolution
of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 was dismissed.
28. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of evidence,
held that the appellant failed to establish cruelty on the part
of the respondent-wife, thereby declining the relief of divorce.
29. This Court, vide order dated 07.11.2025, issued notice to the
respondent-wife, who entered appearance and contested the
appeal.
30. Subsequently, both parties expressed willingness to explore
reconciliation, and accordingly, vide order dated 28.01.2026,
the matter was referred to JHALSA, Ranchi, for mediation.
Directions were also issued regarding payment of travelling
expenses to the respondent-wife.
31. Mediation proceedings, however, did not progress smoothly,
as the respondent-wife failed to attend regularly, though,
she attributed her absence on one occasion to the child’s
examination. Considering the possibility of settlement, this
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
10
Court extended time for mediation , vide order dated
10.03.2026.
32. On 05.05.2026, the appellant-husband offered a one-time
settlement of ₹40,00,000/- along with bearing future
educational expenses of the children and marriage expenses
of the daughter. The respondent-wife did not accept the said
proposal, contending insufficiency of the amount.
33. In view of the divergence, this Court directed both parties to
file affidavits in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324,
and called for the trial court records.
34. Affidavits having been filed, the matter was heard at length
on 06.07.2026 on the issue of permanent alimony and on
that date, the arguments concluded and order was reserved.
35. It is manifest that both parties are unwilling to cohabit, and
hence, this Court cannot compel them to live together. The
controversy now revolves around the quantum of permanent
alimony. While the appellant has offered ₹40,00,000/- with
additional commitments, the respondent -wife disputes
adequacy of the said amount for her sustenance and that of
the children.
36. 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, daughter and
the wife on the basis of pleadings available on
record and as per the standard of life they
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
11
would have enjoyed had they been living with
the appellant?
37. 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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
12
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 the other party vary, modify or
rescind any such order in such manner as the court may
deem just].”
38. 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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
13
behind this is to sustain the live of husband or wife, if
having no sufficient source of income.
39. 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.
40. 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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
14
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.
41. 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.”
42. 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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
15
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,
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.
43. 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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
16
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 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.”
44. 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.
45. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U. Sree v. U.
Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
17
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 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.”
46. 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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
18
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
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
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are 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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
19
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; 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]
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
20
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.”
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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
21
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
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;
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
22
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."
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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
23
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 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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
24
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.
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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
25
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.
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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
26
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 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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
27
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.”
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. 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 sought. If both spouses
are earning, the income of each must be examined. However,
where the wife is not employed or has no independent
source of income, the focus naturally shifts to the income of
the husband, which becomes the foundation for fixing the
amount of maintenance payable.
60. 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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
28
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.
61. Once the income, whether actual or notional, is
determined, the Family Court must then proceed 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
fixed towards the sustenance of those who are entitled to be
maintained.
62. 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 home. Maintenance, after all, is not a matter of
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
29
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.
63. Further, in Manish Jain v. Akanksha 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.
64. 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 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.
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
30
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of
law, this Court is now re-adverting to the factual aspects of
the instant case.
68. Herein, admittedly, 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 appellant-husband annexing therewith the details of
salary, movable and immovable property. The respondent-
wife has also filed the affidavit regarding her financial
position and need.
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
31
69. We have perused the affidavit filed by the appellant-husband
wherefrom, it is evident that the appellant is Contractual
Doctor employed at Sadar Hospital, Garhwa.
70. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that his gross
monthly emoluments stand at ₹1,61,260/-, out of which, a
substantial deduction of ₹1,28,252/- is effected towards
repayment of loans.
71. It has also been contended that the Maa Parwati Hospital is
owned by Sanjiv Kumar Singh (examined as P.W.3). The
appellant only occasionally attends the facility as an on-call
doctor after completing his statutory government duty.
72. So far immovable property is concerned, submission has
been made that a tract of land was purchased in the year
2005 by the appellant’s father. The property remains
undivided joint-family property.
73. It has also been submitted that the appellant had purchased
a land at Garhwa with financial assistance from friends and
relatives, valued at Rs.22,00,000/-. The said land was
acquired specifically for the construction of a hospital under
a charitable Trust, which is currently still under
construction.
74. Submission has been made on behalf of respondent -wife
that her husband is presently engaged in the construction
and establishment of a private hospital and has invested
substantial amount toward the said project.
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
32
75. Further, submission has been made that considering the life
expectancy and the fact that the respondent-wife is having
two children; and further there would incur huge amount on
the education/medical etc. of son, who is only 14 years of
age and further, on the marriage of one daughter who is only
12 years of age and taking into consideration the future
inflation etc., though, a huge amount would require for
survival of the wife, a son and one daughter.
76. This Court, considering the submissions advanced on behalf
of parties and law laid by Hon’ble Apex Court as referred
hereinabove, has again perused the affidavits filed by the
appellant-husband and found therefrom that his gross
monthly salary is Rs. 1,61,260/- per month, and as per the
assertions made by the respondent regarding the appellant
that he is running a highly profitable private clinic and
pathology lab and the appellant occasionally attends the
facility as an on-call doctor after completing his statutory
government duty hours.
77. Herein emphatically, it has been canvassed on behalf of the
appellant that his gross monthly emoluments stand at
₹1,61,260/-, out of which, a substantial deduction of
₹1,28,252/- is effected towards repayment of loans. The
appellant, therefore, asserts that his net disposable income
is considerably diminished, and such financial constraint
ought to be duly considered while adjudicating the quantum
of permanent alimony payable to the respondent-wife.
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
33
78. 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 or before the 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.
79. 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.
80. 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 based on
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
34
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.
81. 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
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted as
under:
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
35
“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 financial 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 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
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
36
permitted to substantially dilute the respondent’s
real earning capacity for the purpose of determining
maintenance.
82. 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 commitments
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.
83. In the instant case, it is manifest from the affidavit filed by
the petitioner-appellant/husband particularly paragraph-3
of the said affidavit that he has availed a personal loan from
Axis Bank to the tune of ₹38,00,000/-, which was disbursed
into his account on 03.06.2025 during the pendency of the
present appeal. In consequence thereof, a sum of ₹81,771/-
per month is being deducted from his salary under the head
of loan repayment. The aforesaid fact stands duly
substantiated by Annexure –1 series appended to the
supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant-husband, in
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
37
conformity with the disclosure requirements laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra).
84. It further emerges from paragraph-3 of the affidavit that
there is no disclosure to the effect that the aforesaid loan
was contracted to meet any essential, necessary, or
obligatory financial requirement. In such circumstances and
applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi (supra), the deduction of
₹81,771/- per month from the salary of the appellant -
husband towards repayment of the said loan cannot be
permitted to operate to the detriment of the respondent-wife
in the matter of fixation of permanent alimony.
85. Further from record, it is evident that the respondent-wife
has to survive for her livelihood as also to take care of
upbringing and better education of the son and daughter
born out of their wedlock solely on the amount of permanent
alimony so given by the appellant-husband.
86. At present, the respondent-wife is only 40 years and taking
into life expectancy of even 72 years, she has to survive for
long 32 years on the amount of permanent alimony given by
her husband beating the inflation etc. along with his son,
who is 14 years old and daughter, who is 12 years of age.
87. As per the submission advanced on behalf of the
respondent-wife, it has been contended that if the life
expectancy of respondent/wife is taken into account and the
computation is made by applying the multiplier method on
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
38
one-third of his monthly salary, the resultant figure would
exceed ₹1 crore. Nevertheless, having regard to the present
financial capacity of the appellant, the respondent-wife has
moderated her claim and has expressed expectation of
₹40,00,000/- (Forty lakhs) towards her own permanent
alimony, ₹25,00,000/- (Twenty-five lakhs) earmarked for the
son, and a further sum of ₹25,00,000/- (Twenty-five lakhs)
for the daughter born out of the wedlock.
88. This Court is conscious that the appellant-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 respondent-wife, his son and daughter, they
would have enjoyed during subsistence of the marriage as
per income and status of his husband/father, the appellant
herein.
89. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court thought it proper that
a sum of Rs. ₹40,00,000/- towards respondent/wife as
permanent alimony, ₹25,00,000/- earmarked for the son,
and a further sum of ₹25,00,000/- for the daughter, as
such, 90,00,000/- [Ninety lakhs] in total as one-time
permanent alimony would be just, fair and reasonable, for
sustenance of the respondent-wife, who has no other source
of income than the alimony so received by the appellant-
husband and the son and the daughter born out of their
wedlock for their livelihood, sustenance and study.
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
39
90. In such view of the matter, the appellant -husband is
directed to pay a sum of Rs. Rs. ₹40,00,000/- (Forty Lakhs)
towards respondent/wife as permanent alimony,
₹25,00,000/- (Twenty-five Lakhs) earmarked for the son, and
a further sum of ₹25,00,000/- (Twenty-five Lakhs) for the
daughter, which shall be paid by him in four equal
installments within a period of 12 months from the date of
passing of the order and first installment shall be paid
within a period of one month from today.
91. It is made clear that the appellant is directed to do fix
deposit of Rs.25 lakhs each in the nationalized bank in
name of his son and his daughter respectively for their
education/marriage etc.
92. It is made clear that the son’s and daughter’s right to
inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral
or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.
93. This Court, considering the factual aspect involved in the
case and particularly the fact that due to financial crunch
the survival of the respondent-wife, son and daughter as
also the study of the children may not get disturbed, grants
liberty to the respondent-wife that if the amount is not
credited to her account, as per the direction passed by this
Court, the respondent-wife will be at liberty to approach the
court of law in accordance with law.
94. This Court, however, hope and trust that the appellant-
husband will not invite such situation and will abide by the
2026:JHHC:23530-DB
40
direction so passed by this Court for permanent alimony in
favour of respondent-wife, son and daughter.
95. Accordingly, the impugned order/judgment dated
19.02.2025 and decree signed on 07.03.2025 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original
Suit No. 78 of 2020 are hereby quashed and set aside and
the marriage is dissolved, subject to the final payment of
alimony, as directed by this Court.
96. With the aforesaid directions and observations, as made
hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed of and
decreed in the above terms.
97. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
06/08/2026
A.F.R
Rohit/-
Uploaded on 07.08.2026
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....