KSHIRODINI@KHIRODINI SUNA vs DINAMANI SUNA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RSA No.267 of 2016
In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
( )

Kshirodini @ Khirodini Suna …. Appellant
-versus-
Dinamani Suna …. Respondent

For Appellant - Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocate


For Respondent - D.K.Sahu, Advocate


CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :14.05.2026:: Date of Judgment :15.05.2026
nd
A.C. Behera, J .
This 2 appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Wife challenging the
judgment and decree dated 19.04.2016 and 04.05.2016 respectively passed
in MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013 by the learned Additional District
Judge, Padampur in the District of Bargarh on the ground of inadequacy of
the amount of permanent alimony passed in her favour praying for
enhancement of the same.
nd
2. The Respondent and Appellant in this 2 appeal being the husband
and wife respectively, they were the Petitioner and Respondent before the
learned Trial Court in the suit vide Civil Suit (MAT) No.36 of 2010 under
Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Respondent and
Page 1 of 12

//2//


st st
Appellant before the learned 1 Appellate Court in the 1 Appeal vide
MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013.
nd
3. The factual backgrounds of this 2 appeal, which prompted the
Appellant/Wife for filing the same is that, the Respondent/Husband being
the Petitioner filed the suit vide Civil Suit (MAT) No.36 of 2010 under
Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against his wife (Appellant
nd
in this 2 appeal) arraying her as Respondent praying for passing a decree
of divorce dissolving his marriage with his wife taking several grounds.
To which, his wife contested denying the allegations alleged by the
Petitoner (husband) against her.
4. After taking the materials and evidence available in the record into
account, the learned Trial Court decreed the said suit of the
Petitioner/Husband vide Civil Suit (MAT) No.36 of 2010 on contest
against his wife and dissolved the marriage of the Petitioner and
Respondent.
To which, the wife challenged by preferring an appeal vide MAT
st
Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013 before the learned 1 Appellate Court.
st
5. After hearing from both the sides, the learned 1 Appellate Court
disposed of that MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013 on contest as per its
judgment and decree dated 19.04.2016 and 04.05.2016 respectively
Page 2 of 12

//3//


confirming the decree of divorce passed by the learned Trial Court
directing the Husband to pay Rs.7.5 Lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty
Thousand only) as lump sum to the Wife towards her permanent/one time
alimony and also directed the Husband to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only) per month for the maintenance of the minor son.
6. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed
st
by the learned 1 Appellate Court in MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013,
nd
the wife challenged the same preferring this 2 appeal being the Appellant
against her Husband arraying her Husband as Respondent praying for
st
modification of the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned 1
Appellate Court in order to enhance the awarded permanent alimony in her
favour from Rs.7.5 Lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only)
to 15 Lakhs (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only).
nd
7. This 2 Appeal filed by the Wife (Appellant) against the Husband
(Respondent) was admitted on formulation of the following substantial
question of law i.e.:-
st
Whether, the 1 Appellate Court confirming the

decree of divorce is not right in awarding the permanent
lump sum alimony of Rs.7.5 Lakhs, which is on a lower
side in view of the evidence on record?
8. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.
Page 3 of 12

//4//


9. As per Order No.36 dated 20.03.2026, the learned counsels of both
the sides were directed to clarify the following queries of this Court for
nd
the fair adjudication of this 2 appeal and the said queries are as follows:-
(i)
Present salary of the Husband/Respondent
(Dinamani Suna).
(ii) Present remuneration of the Appellant/Wife.
(iii) The date of birth of the son of the Appellant
and Respondent.

On that day i.e. on 20.03.2026, the learned counsels of both the
sides submitted the photo copy of the Matriculation Certificate of the son
of the Appellant and Respondent showing his date of birth as 02.08.2004
and took time for filing of the documents in support of the above query
Nos.1 and 2.
10. In pursuance to the above directions made through Order No.36
dated 20.03.2026, the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted the pay
slip of the Respondent/Husband for the Month of February, 2026, which
was issued on dated 23.03.2026 by the Block Education Officer, Paikamal
and the monthly honorarium of the Appellant/Wife, which was issued by
the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Padampur on dated
23.03.2026.
11. As per the submitted pay slip of the Respondent/Husband, he is
serving as a Government Teacher under the Block Education Officer,
Page 4 of 12

//5//


Paikamal and his monthly gross salary is Rs.1,00,764/- (One lakh seven
hundred sixty four only) and after deduction of P.Tax, LIC Premium, TPF,
EV advance and festival advance, in total Rs.24712/-, (Twenty four
thousand seven hundred twelve only) his monthly home take salary is
Rs.76,052/- (Seventy six thousand fifty two only).
12. Except the P.F., other deductions from the salary of the
Respondent/Husband are not statutory deductions. Because, the deduction
towards LIC Premium is not a statutory deduction, but, the same is a
deferred payment, which will be paid to the Respondent/Husband later.
The deduction i.e. TPF, EV advance and festival advance are the
voluntary deductions of the Respondent/Husband from his monthly salary.
13. The Appellant/Wife is working as an Anganwadi Worker at
Loharpali under the C.D.P.O, Padampur and her monthly honorarium is
Rs.10,000/- (Rupess ten thousand only) as per the submitted certificate.

14. It is the settled propositions of law that,
While granting permanent alimony, no arithmetical
formula can be adopted, as there cannot be mathematical
exactitudes . It shall depend upon the status of the
Parties, their respective social needs, the financial
capacity of the Husband and other obligations.
Page 5 of 12

//6//


Duty of the Court is to see that, the wife lives with
dignity and comfort and not in penury. Living need not be
luxurious, but, simultaneously she should not be left to
live in discomfort. Court has to act with pragmatic
sensibility, so that, the wife does not meet with any kind
of manmade misfortune.
Grant of permanent alimony to wife is the discretion
of the Court, likewise the Court has the discretion to
increase the maintenance based on substantial change in
circumstances.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified
by the Apex Court and Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the
following decisions:-
(I) In a case between Rakesh Malhotra Vs. Krishna
Malhotra reported in 2021 (1) Crimes 48 (S.C.)
(D.B) that,
Since basic order was passed by the concerned
Court under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, by very nature, order of
modification/variation can also be passed by the
concerned Court exercising the power under Section
25(2) or 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(II) In a case between Sasmita Moharana Vs.
Susen Kumar Maharana reported in 2024 (4) CCC
10 (Orissa) (D.B) that,
The grant of permanent alimony to wife as per
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, is the
discretion of the Court.

(III) In a case between Nirmal Karnakar Vs.
Parbati @ Parbati Karnakar reported in 2025 (1)
CCC 395 (Orissa) (D.B) that,
Court has discretion to increase maintenance
based on substantial change in circumstances
applying the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
Page 6 of 12

//7//


(IV) In a case between Parvin Kumar Jain Vs.
Anju Jain reported in 2024 (4) CCC 366 (SC) (D.B)
that,
Amount of permanent alimony should not
penalize husband, but, should be made with aim of
ensuring decent standard of living for wife.
(V) In a case between Kiran Jyot Maini Vs.
Anish Pramod Patel reported in 2024 (3) CCC 100
(S.C.) (D.B) that,
In order to provide one time permanent
alimony,the Status of parties is a significant factor,
encompassing their social standing, lifestyle and
financial background. Financial capacity of husband
is a critical factor in determining permanent
alimony.

(VI) In a case between Ranjan Kumar Routray
Vs. (Smt.) Madhumita Mohanty @ Routray
reported in 2020 (II) OLR 940 (D.B) 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 her status and the mode of life, she was
used to live, when, she lived with her husband. No
arithmetical formula can be adopted as there cannot
be any mathematical exactitude, while granting
permanent alimony.
(VII) In a case between Kalyan Dey Chowdhury
Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy reported in
2017 (1) CLR (S.C.) 1099 (D.B) that,
Moulding the claim for maintenance should be
passed on various factors. 25% of the husband’s net
salary would be just and proper to be awarded as
maintenance to the wife.
(VIII) In a case between Dr.Kulbhusan Kumar
Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and another reported in 1970
(3) SCC 129 that,
25 per cent of the husband’s net salary would be
just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the
Respondent/Wife. The amount of permanent
alimony awarded to the wife must befitting to the
status of the parties and capacity of the spouse to
pay maintenance.
(IX) In a case between Umakanta Barik Vs.
Rukmini Barik reported in 2017 (1) OLR 784 (D.B)
that,
Page 7 of 12

//8//


While granting permanent alimony, no
arithmetical 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.
Duty of the Court to see that, the wife lives with
dignity and comfort and not in penury. Living need
not be luxurious, but, simultaneously she should
not be left to live in discomfort. Court has to act with
pragmatic sensibility, so that, the wife does not meet
with any kind of man-made misfortune.
(X) In a case between Jyoti Sankar Panda and
another Vs. Jyotirmayee Dash and another
reported in 2022 (3) CCC 42 (Orissa) that,


The quantum of permanent alimony should be fixed
taking into consideration to the status of the parties.
(Para No.15)
In this case, the appellant is earning a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- per month as salary. Out of which,
approximately 33 Per cent is deducting towards
income tax, which comes to around Rs.83,000/-.So, his
home take salary (including his contribution to GPF,
Health Insurance Scheme Premium etc) comes to
around Rs.1,60,000/-.
th
Therefore the wife is entitled for 1/4 of the same,
which comes to around Rs.40,000/- per month.
Respondent/wife is also earning sum of Rs15,000/-
per month approximately. So, from the monthly salary
of the Husband, the Respondent/Wife is entitled to
Rs.40,000/-(-)Rs.15,000/- i.e. Rs.25,000/- per month
and per annum it comes to Rs,3,00,000/-.
Since parties were 35 to 40 years old at the time
filing of civil proceeding, multiplier 16 should be
applied in this case. Therefore, total amount comes to
Rs.48,000,000/-.
It will just and proper to enhance the permanent
alimony of the wife from Rs.40,000,00/- to
Rs.48,000,00/-.


Page 8 of 12

//9//


15. As per the dictums and guidelines formulated in the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions, the quantum of permanent alimony for the wife like
nd
the Appellant in this 2 appeal should be fixed taking into consideration
the status of the Parties.
16. When, the suit vide Civil Suit (MAT) No.36 of 2010 has been
continuing between the Parties since the year 2010, then, it is felt that, the
quantum of permanent alimony granted in favour of the wife by the
st
learned 1 Appellate Court is at a lower side.
Therefore, the quantum of permanent alimony for the Wife
(appellant) is to be fixed taking into consideration to the status of the
Parties. For which, the Appellant/Wife is to be entitled to the appropriate
permanent alimony as per the calculations given below on the basis of the
guidelines fixed in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions:-
Calculation for the entitled permanent alimony of the
Appellant/Wife
As per the undisputed Pay Slip (indicated in the Para No.11 of this
judgment), the monthly home take salary of the Respondent/Husband is
Rs.1,00,764/- ( One Lakh Seven Hundred Sixty-Four Rupees Only) , because, at
present, there is no deduction towards Professional Tax and also there is
Page 9 of 12

//10//


no payment towards income tax in respect of the annual income from
salary up to 12 Lakhs.
th
Therefore, the Appellant (wife) is entitled for the 1/4 of
Rs.1,00,764/- ( One Lakh Seven Hundred Sixty-Four Rupees Only) , which
is comes to around Rs.25,191/- (Twenty-five thousand, one hundred
ninety-one Rupees) per month.
The monthly honorarium of the wife is Rs.10,000/- as an Anganwadi
Worker.
So, the monthly entitled maintenance of the Appellant (wife) is
Rs.25,191(-)Rs.10,000=Rs.15,191/- per month and per annum is
Rs.15,191/- X 12=Rs.1,82,292/-.
Since, the present age of the Husband and Wife is 53 years and 42
for which, the
years respectively, multiplier i.e. 13 is applicable for
computation/calculation of permanent alimony for the wife.
Therefore, the total amount of permanent alimony for the wife
comes to Rs.1,82,292/- X 13= Rs.23,69,796/- (Twenty-three lakh sixty-
nine thousand seven hundred ninety-six rupees only).
nd
17. Though, at the time of filing of the 2 appeal vide R.S.A. No.267 of
2016, the wife had prayed for the enhancement of the awarded permanent
st
alimony in her favour by the learned 1 Appellate Court from Rs.7.5
Page 10 of 12

//11//


Lakhs ( Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand rupees only) to Rs.15 Lakhs (Fifteen
Lakh rupees only), but, in the meantime, more than 9 years have already
been passed.
When as per law, the quantum of permanent alimony should be
fixed taking consideration to the status of the Parties on the basis of their
income and when, the power of the Court is not limited to grant the exact
amount towards permanent alimony claimed by the wife, then at this
juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the
decisions indicated in Para No.14 of this judgment, though, the wife has
claimed for enhancement of the awarded permanent alimony in her favour
from Rs.7.5 Lakhs to Rs.15 Lakhs, but, as per the calculations made
above, according to law, she (wife) is entitled to get permanent alimony of
Rs.23,69,796/-, (Twenty-three lakh sixty-nine thousand seven hundred
ninety-six rupees only), which is rounded as Rs.23 Lakhs (Twenty-three
Lakh rupees only ) .
Therefore, as per the discussions and observations made above, it is
just and proper to enhance the permanent alimony awarded in favour of the
st
Appellant/Wife by the learned 1 Appellate Court in MAT Appeal
No.01/98 of 2012/2013 from Rs.7.5 Lakhs ( Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand

rupees only) to Rs.23 Lakhs ( Twenty-three Lakh rupees only).
Page 11 of 12

//12//


nd
As such, this 2 Appeal filed by the Appellant/Wife has merit. The
same is to be allowed.
nd
18. In result, the 2 appeal filed by the Appellant (wife) is allowed on
st
merit for enhancement of permanent alimony awarded by the learned 1
Appellate Court in MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013 in favour of the
Appellant (wife) through modification of the judgment relating to the
st
quantum of permanent alimony passed in the 1 Appeal vide MAT Appeal
st
No.01/98 of 2012/2013 by the learned 1 Appellate Court.
The permanent alimony awarded in favour of the Appellant/Wife by
st
the learned 1 Appellate Court in MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013 is
enhanced from 7.5 Lakhs ( Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand rupees only) to 23
Lakhs Twenty-three Lakh rupees only).
(
The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the Respondent/Husband to
the Appellant/Wife towards her permanent alimony within three months
from today after deducting the amounts, if any, already paid by the
Respondent/Husband to the Appellant/Wife for the same.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
15 of May 2026/ Binayak Sahoo//
Junior Stenographer

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 19-May-2026 15:50:26
Signature Not Verified
Page 12 of 12