Ramen Kumar Deka vs Smti Bondita Baruah

Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010183242025

2026:GAU-
AS:13797-DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Mat.App./60/2025
RAMEN KUMAR DEKA
S/O LATE PHUKAN CHANDRA DEKA, R/O HOUSE NO. 167, SURJYA NAGAR,
P.O .UDAYAN VIHAR, P.S. SATGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
SMTI BONDITA BARUAH
W/O SRI RAMEN KUMAR DEKA, R/O JEET APARTMENT, P.O. NARENGI, P.S.
NOONMATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
Advocate for the appellant : Mr. B. K. Bhagawati
Advocate for the respondent : Mr. K. M. Hasan

:::BEFORE:::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA


Date on which judgment is reserved : 02.09.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17/09/2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : No.
operative part of the judgment ?
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?

Page No.# 2/9

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. B. K. Bhagawati, learned counsel for the appellant husband. Also heard Mr. K. M.
Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent wife.
2. The appellant husband has put to challenge the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2025, passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc.(J) Case No.196/2018, by
which the appellant husband is directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs.60 lakhs to the respondent
wife.
3. The counsel for the appellant husband submits that Rs.20 lakhs has been paid at the time of
admission of the present appeal and the same has been withdrawn by the respondent wife.
4. This Court, vide order dated 05.12.2025, had directed the counsels for the
parties to obtain instructions from their respective clients, with regard to
whether they could come to a settlement regarding the permanent alimony to
be paid to the respondent wife.
5. As instructions were not forthcoming, this Court on 22.06.2026, had
referred the matter to mediation for attempting a settlement of the dispute, as
the counsel for the respondent wife could not give any specific figure for
compromising the matter. The Mediator of the Gauhati High Court had
thereafter submitted a report dated 28.08.2026, which was to the effect that
the dispute between the parties could not be settled in mediation.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent wife is
a M.A./B.Ed. qualification and is working in a private college. However, he does
not know the name of the college where she is working. Further, the affidavit of

Page No.# 3/9
assets and liabilities made by the respondent wife shows that her expenditure is
around Rs.65,000/- per month and, as such, the same proved that the
respondent wife was having an income. The appellant's counsel further submits
that prior to the impugned order being passed by the learned Family Court, the
appellant had been paying Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent wife and
also for the maintenance of their son, who is now 28 years of age. The
appellant's counsel submits that the appellant has now remarried and has a
wife, who is suffering from infertility problems. The appellant's counsel submits
that the appellant is a Junior Engineer, working in Oil India Limited and is due to
retire in 2 years time. Though the appellant is earning a net income of
approximately Rs.1.98 lakhs, the permanent alimony of Rs.60 lakhs to be paid is
too high and the same should be reduced, keeping in view the fact that the
appellant is going to retire soon and would have to look after his wife and will
be without any income thereafter.
7. Mr. K. M. Hasan, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submits that the appellant is having 4 landed properties, besides earning
approximately Rs. 2 lakhs from Oil India Limited. The counsel for the
respondent further submits that the education expenses for their child has been
borne by the father of the respondent wife and not by the appellant. He submits
that the respondent is not working and as the appellant is earning a handsome
salary and has got landed property, the grant of permanent alimony of Rs.60
lakhs is proper and justified and as such, the impugned judgment should not be
interfered with.
8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
9. On perusing the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Family

Page No.# 4/9
Court has taken the net salary of the appellant to be Rs.2.6 lakhs per month. It
is also seen that the respondent has taken a stand that he has taken a loan of
Rs.10 lakhs from the bank, for the infertility treatment to be given to his new
wife. The learned Family Court also came to a finding that the son of the
appellant, having attained majority, did not require maintenance and as such,
only Rs.20,000/- per month was given as maintenance, to the respondent wife.
10. The learned Family Court, on considering the fact that the respondent
wife would require the same standard of living she was used to while living with
her husband, prior to the divorce and keeping in view the earning capacity of
the wife, had granted permanent alimony of Rs.60 lakhs. There is no discussion
as to how the above figure has been arrived at, except by holding that there
was no proof that the respondent wife was working.
11. On perusing the affidavit of assets and liabilities dated 09/12/2024
submitted by the respondent wife before the learned Family Court, we find that
the respondent wife has stated that she spends Rs.50,000/- as general monthly
expenses for rent, household expenses, medical bills, transportation etc. The
respondent has also stated that the approximate expenses incurred on account
of her son was Rs.15,000/- per month.
12. As Rs.20,000/- per month has been provided by the appellant to the
respondent wife as maintenance, the respondent wife appears to have been
earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The affidavit of assets and liabilities submitted
by the respondent also shows that she has taken loans from three financial
institutions, without elaborating on the exact amount of loans that she has
taken from the banks.

Page No.# 5/9
13. The details of the financial institutions from where she has taken loans
and the repayment schedule of the same, which is reflected in para H of the
respondent’s affidavit of assets and liabilities is reproduced hereinbelow as
follows:
“ H. Details of Liabilities of the Deponent
1. Loans, Liabilities, mortgage or charge of
the deponent, if any:
i. Loan from Bandhan Bank vide Saving A/C
No.50160008634872 at Narengi Branch
ii. Muthoot Finance, Narengi Branch, vide Loan
No. 04595/SRS/000043
Customer ID No. 045950000001243
iii. JANA SMALL FINANCE BANK, Sixmile
Branch vide loan account No. 33168740003254
2. Details of any EMIs being paid: i. Bandhan Bank, Rs. 2240/- per week.
ii. Muthoot Finance, 24% of loan amount per
month.
iii. Jana Small Finance, 15.99% of laon amount
per month
3. Date and purpose of taking loan or
incurring any liability :
i. Bandhan Bank, dated 16/08/2016, for
education of Son
ii. Muthoot Finance, in the years of 2021 for
educational purpose of my son.
iii. Jana Small Finance Bank, dated 15.06.2022
for treatment of son.
4. Actual amount borrowed, if any and the
amount paid date of filling the Affidavit:
Rs.2,00,000/- (Approx)
5. Any other information which would be
relevant to describe current liabilities of the
Deponent:
No”
14. The details of the dependent family members of the appellant husband, as provided in the
appellant’s “affidavit of “assets and liabilities” in para C, states as follows:-
“ C. Details of dependant family members
1. Details of Dependent family members, if any.
a. Relationship with dependants: Present wife (Buli Borah) and 08 other dependents of the joint family
members at Rangamati, Mangadoi, Dist- Darrang, Assam.”

Page No.# 6/9

15. Para G of the “affidavit of assets and liabilities” submitted by the appellant husband shows that he
is the owner of two properties, which are as follows:-
“ G. Assets (moveable and immovable) owned by the Deponent.
1. Self-acquired property, if any: (i) 01 Katha of land, covered by Dag No. 634 of K.P. Patta No. 526
of Revenue village – Ranjamati, Mouza- Mangaldoi, Dist- Darrang, Assam. (ii) 01 Flt measuring
773 sq.ft. on the Ground Floor at Bamunimaidan, Guwahati-21.
2. Properties jointly owned by the parties after marriage : No.
3. Share in any ancestral property: Not taken”

16. The appellant in para H(1) of his affidavit has also shown that he had taken a loan amount of
Rs.10 lakhs from UCO Bank, Bonda Branch, Guwahati and that the amount of EMI was Rs. 20,492/-
per month. Though the appellant in his “affidavit of assets and liabilities” has taken a stand that his
monthly net salary was Rs.1,59,973.65, we are of the view that the net monthly salary of the appellant
is approximately Rs.1,97,608/- per month, on the basis of the UCO Bank, Narengi Branch, Guwahati
statement, as on 18.02.2025, which relates to his salary for the month of December, 2024.
17. The parties had married on 21.11.1996 and a son was born to them on 02.03.1998. The couple
started living separately from 13.08.2009 and their marriage was dissolved, vide the order dated
09.02.2016 passed by the learned Principle Judge, Family Court-1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in FC
(Civil) Case No.380/2009. The respondent wife thereafter prayed for permanent alimony, vide Misc.(J)
Case No.196/2018, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2025, granting Rs.60
lakhs as permanent alimony to the respondent wife.
18. The appellant’s “affidavit of assets and liabilities” dated 19/02/2025 shows that his general
monthly expenses for running his household is Rs. 85,000/-. Further, his net salary as per the affidavit
is Rs. 1,59,973/-.
19. In the case of M.V. Leelavathi versus Dr. C. R. Swamy @ Dr. C. R. Kumara Swamy , 2025 9 SCR

Page No.# 7/9
178 : 2025 insc 994, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted permanent alimony of Rs.50 lakhs to the
wife, who was M. Tech and L.L.B., but was practicing as an advocate. However, at the time of making
the claim, the wife took the plea that she was unemployed. The husband, in the said case, was a doctor,
earning approximately Rs.1.4 lakhs per month.
20. In the case of Kiran Jyot Maini vs. Anish Pramod Patel reported in (2024) 13 SCC 66 , the
Supreme Court held that the following broad factors should be considered while determining
permanent alimony, i.e. income and properties of both the parties, conduct of the parties, status, social
and financial, of the parties, their respective personal needs, capacity and duty to maintain others
dependent on them, husband's own expenses, wife's comfort considering her status and the mode of life
she was used to during the subsistence of the marriage, among other supplementary factors.

21. The Supreme Court thereafter laid down a Comprehensive framework for determining the
quantum of maintenance in matrimonial disputes, particularly focusing on permanent alimony. These
factors include but are not limited to:
(i) Status of the parties, social and financial.
(ii) Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children.
(iii) Qualifications and employment status of the parties.
(iv) Independent income or assets owned by the parties.
(v) Maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial home.
(vi)Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities.
(vii) Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
(viii) Financial capacity of husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.

22. The Supreme Court also held that 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.

Page No.# 8/9
Even if the wife is earning, it does not bar her from receiving maintenance; the Court should
assess whether her income suffices to maintain a lifestyle similar to that in the matrimonial home.
Serious disability or illness of a spouse, child, or dependent family member, requiring constant care and
recurrent expenditure, is also a significant consideration.

23. The son of the appellant has attained majority and the respondent's monthly expenditure is
approximately Rs. 50,000/-. As education bills are no longer required to be paid, it is clear that the
respondent is having an income of at least Rs. 30,000/-, keeping in view the fact that Rs. 20,000/- is
being paid as maintenance by the appellant.

24. The records of the learned Family Court contain the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year
2024-2025 pertaining to the appellant- husband, which shows that his total annual income was Rs.
52,30,890/- and net tax payable by him was Rs. 14,52,042/-. The above would show that his monthly
income was Rs.3.11 lakhs approximately, prior to other deductions being made from his net salary. It
can thus be said that his net monthly income was approximately Rs. 2.5 lakhs.

25. As can be seen from the details of house loans, the appellant has apparently been taking loans, the
reasons for which are not specific, though loan for educational purposes and treatment of his son are a
part of the loans taken by him. We are not in the knowledge of the reasons for the taking of other loans.
Be that as it may, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepa Joshi Vs. Gaurav Joshi,
reported in 2026 INSC 370 , that the husband's duty to maintain his wife cannot take a back seat to
repayment of the loans, especially when it relates to loans taken for buying property or constructing a
house etc.

26. In view of the fact that the appellant is going to retire in 2 years while having a second wife and
in view of the fact that he has got 8 other dependents as per his affidavit of “assets and liabilities”, we
are of the view that the permanent alimony of Rs. 60 lakhs directed to be paid by the learned Family
Court, is a little on the high side.

Page No.# 9/9
27. Keeping in view the factors to be considered while considering the payment of permanent
alimony to be paid to the wife, who in this case is a working woman and their son being 28 years old,
we are of the view that there should not be an undue burden cast on the husband, especially in the
sunset of his working career. We are accordingly of the view that the payment of permanent alimony of
Rs. 40 lakhs to the wife would be a balanced, realistic and equitable determination, which neither
unduly burdens the husband, nor leaves the wife in a state of financial vulnerability.

28. Accordingly, we modify the impugned judgment dated 11/07/2025 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Kamrup (M) Guwahati, in Misc. (J) Case No. 196/2018, by directing
the appellant- husband to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 40 lakhs to the respondent- wife instead of Rs.
60 lakhs. The amount of permanent alimony already paid to the respondent- wife shall be adjusted
against the Rs. 40 lakhs to be paid to the respondent wife.

29. The impugned judgment is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above.

30. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

31. Send back the TCR.


JUDGE JUDGE

Digitally signed
by Sukhamay
Dey
Date: 2026.09.17
14:23:08 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant
Sukham
ay Dey