SANDHYA KUMARI vs MITHILESH KUMAR
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 156 of 2025
Sandhya Kumari, aged about 26 Years, W/o Mithilesh
Kumar, D/o Mahesh Shah, Resident of village Musaharidih,
P.O. & P.S. Musahari, District- Muzaffarpur Bihar.
… … Appellant
Versus
Mithilesh Kumar, S/O Chandeshwar Prasad Shah, R/O
Luby Circular Road, Hirapur, P.O. & P.S. & District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Present Address Dujra Pahalwan
Ghat, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Budha Colony, Dist.-Patna Bihar..
… … Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate
: Mr. Ishan Ashish, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
: Mr. Alok Kumar Verma, Advocate
----------------------------
th
C.A.V. on 28 April, 2026 Pronounced on 12/05/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family
Court Act, 1984, is directed against the order/judgment dated
04.01.2024 and decree signed on 12.01.2024 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original
Suit No. 837 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed
by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage by
decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 against the appellant-wife, has been allowed.
1
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
Factual Matrix
2. The respondent-husband, on the ground of cruelty
and desertion, had filed an application under Section 13(1)
(i-a) (i-b), of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family
Court for a decree of divorce against his lawfully wedded wife
and the same was numbered as the Original Suit No. 837 of
2023.
3. The case was admitted for hearing.
4. Upon notice, the appellant-wife did not appear in the
suit proceeding and, therefore, the case proceeded ex parte .
5. The learned Family Judge has taken into
consideration the pleading made by the respondent-husband
in the plaint.
6. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned
counsel for the respondent-husband and taking into
consideration the material available on record, has framed
only one issue for adjudication of the lis , which is being
referred as under:-
Whether the marriage solemnized between plaintiff and
“
defendant/respondent is to be dissolved by a decree of
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion
or not?”
7. Thereafter, the case proceeded for evidence during
which the respondent-husband has examined three witnesses
including himself as well as exhibited some documents.
2
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
8. Since it was an ex parte proceeding, there is neither
any oral nor any documentary evidence on the record for
rebutting and contradicting the claim as sought by the
respondent-husband against the appellant-wife.
9. The learned Principal Judge, Family court, after
appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of respondent-
husband, came to the conclusion that the respondent-
husband, has been able to prove and substantiate the factum
of cruelty meted out to him by the defendant-wife, the
appellant herein, as such it was held that the husband, the
respondent herein, is entitled to get a decree of divorce,
against which, the instant appeal has been preferred by the
wife-appellant.
10. The respondent-husband has appeared and filed
counter affidavit dated 15.01.2026 in this appeal wherein he
has stated that he is ready to settle the present dispute with
the appellant-wife and he is ready to pay Rs.8,00,000/- as
settlement amount to the appellant-wife.
11. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court on 13.01.2026 and on that date learned
counsel for the respondent-husband, on instruction, has
submitted that the respondent-husband is ready to deposit
Rs.10 lakhs in this Court within four weeks.
3
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
12. On the submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent-husband, the Coordinate Bench has observed
that this amount may not be in full and final settlement of the
alimony claims of the appellant and that issue would be
decided after hearing all the parties. The respondent-husband
was directed to deposit this amount of Rs. 10 lakhs in this
th
Court latest by 18 of February, 2026. The relevant
paragraphs of the order dated 13.01.2026 is being quoted
hereunder as :-
“6. Mr. Praveen Shankar Prasad, based on instruction from
Mr. Mithilesh Kumar who is present in the Court, states that
Mr. Mithilesh Kumar will, within four weeks from today,
deposit Rs.10 lakhs in this Court.
7. We have informed Mr. Mithilesh Kumar and the
advocate appearing on his behalf that this amount may not be
in full and final settlement of the alimony claims of the
appellant. However, that issue would be decided after hearing
all the parties.
8. We accept Mr. Mithilesh Kumar’s statement as an
undertaking to this Court and consistent with the same, Mr.
Mithilesh Kumar is now directed to deposit this amount of Rs.
10 lakhs in this Court latest by 18th of February, 2026.”
13. The appellant-wife, thereafter, has filed
supplementary affidavit dated 02.02.2026 stating inter alia
therein that with a view to bring the present dispute to an
amicable and final resolution, she is willing to settle her claim
towards permanent alimony upon receipt of a consolidated
sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It has further been averred that
during the subsistence of the marriage, the appellant was
4
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
given certain gifts including a bed, almirah, sofa set, Center
table and her wedding attire, which are presently in the
possession of the Respondent and are liable to be returned to
the Appellant and upon payment of the aforesaid amount and
return of the said articles, the appellant is willing to settle the
matter finally and bring all disputes between the parties to an
end. For ready reference, paragraph-5 of the supplementary
affidavit dated 02.02.2026 is being reproduced herein :-
“5. That it is most respectfully submitted that the Appellant,
with a view to bring the present dispute to an amicable and
final resolution, is willing to settle her claim towards
permanent alimony upon receipt of a consolidated sum of Rs.
10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). It is further respectfully
submitted that, during the subsistence of the marriage, the
Appellant was given certain gifts including a bed, almirah, sofa
set, Center table and her wedding attire, which are presently
in the possession of the Respondent(s) and are liable to be
returned to the Appellant. Upon payment of the aforesaid
amount and return of the said articles, the Appellant is willing
to settle the matter finally and bring all disputes between the
parties to an end.”
14. The matter was again taken up by this Court on
20.02.2026 and the parties were directed to appear before the
Mediator, JHALSA for mediation.
15. Both the parties appeared before the JHALSA on
25.02.2026 and they agreed to settle the dispute once for all
on the following terms and conditions, the same are being
quoted hereunder as:-
5
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
“1. That the sum of Rs 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only)
already deposited by the Respondent-Husband before the
office of Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court and the
return of certain gifts which includes bed, almirah, sofa set,
center table and her wedding attire by the Respondent
Husband shall be treated as full and final settlement of all
claims between the parties arising out of their erstwhile
matrimonial relationship, including but not limited to
maintenance (past or present), permanent alimony, or any
other claim.
2. That upon release/receipt of the said amount in accordance
with the orders of the Hon'ble Court, neither party shall have
any further monetary claim against the other.
3. That certain gifted articles/items presently lying in the
possession of the Husband which include bed, almirah, sofa
set, center table and her wedding attire shall be returned to
the Wife as per the mutually agreed date, that is 8th March
2026. The return of the said articles shall take place from the
residence of the Husband and the same shall be videographed
at the time of handing over for the purpose of maintaining
transparency and record, and the appellant wife/her
representative shall hand over the receiving of the aforesaid
articles/gifts to the concerned driver of the vehicle (delivery
associates) at the time of receiving the same. The aforesaid
articles shall be delivered at Ramdayalu, Near Bus Stand
Chowk, Muzaffarpur, PIN-842002 as agreed by both the
parties and the appellant wife shall received the same at the
aforesaid address.
4. That both parties agree to withdraw, or cause to be
withdrawn, all pending civil and criminal cases, complaints,
applications, or proceedings filed against each other, if any, in
accordance with law.
5. That both parties shall file appropriate applications for
withdrawal/compromise before the concerned courts at the
earliest opportunity and preferably on the same date, and in
any event within one (1) month from the date of signing of this
Settlement Agreement.
6
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
6. That both parties shall cooperate in
quashing/compounding/disposing of any pending
proceedings, if required, in accordance with law.
7. That the parties also undertake not to enter any legal
dispute in future among each other or their family members
and if at all such a situation arises the party shall try to settle
their dispute by way of pre-litigation meditation.”
16. Again, the matter was listed before this Court on
13.03.2026. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife
has submitted that a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs has been agreed to
be paid by the respondent-husband and in fact, the said
amount has been deposited with the Registry of this Court.
17. This Court, taking into consideration the order dated
13.01.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench, has observed
that in addition of making payment of Rs.10 Lakhs, the full
and final settlement is yet to be decided, as per paragraph-7
of the order dated 13.01.2026 and directed the parties to
appear physically on the next date of hearing.
18. On 01.04.2026, both parties have appeared. The
appellant-wife has stated before this Court that though, she
is aged about 23 years but she is in agreement for settlement
on making payment of amount to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/.
19. The respondent-husband has also filed
supplementary counter affidavit
20. Thereafter, one interlocutory application being I.A.
No.4337 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant/wife
7
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
stating therein that there is no chance of mediation/re-union,
since, the respondent/husband has already solemnized
second marriage as such, prayer has been made to heard the
case on the issue of permanent alimony as one time
settlement.
21. Although the respondent/husband has denied the
fact of second marriage, however he has shown his willingness
to settle the matter on the issue of permanent alimony and
accordingly he has filed the affidavit regarding his source of
income and existing property.
22. Accordingly, the matter proceeded and learned
counsel for the respondent/husband was directed to file
affidavit regarding the amount of alimony which is to be paid
in favour of the appellant-wife.
23. The affidavit has been filed by the appellant
disclosing his income etc. and accordingly the matter has
been heard on the point of determination of permanent
alimony without going in to the merit of the impugned
judgment.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
24. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
though the appellant intends to reside with the respondent
but since the respondent/husband has now solemnized
8
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
second marriage and not ready to keep her, as such the only
question remains for alimony.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
he will not argue the case on merit and prayed that the matter
may be resolved by providing the alimony for one time
settlement.
26. Lastly, he has submitted that the appellant-wife has
no source of income to survive.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
27. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
submitted that he also does not want to go into the merit of
issue and he has filed counter affidavit wherein it has been
stated that the respondent/husband is ready to make
payment of Rs.10,00,000/- in the form of permanent alimony.
Analysis:
28. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned
Family Judge in the impugned judgment.
29. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment passed
by the learned family court, the appellant-wife has preferred
the present appeal. However, after appearance of the
respondent-husband, the parties have agreed for permanent
alimony and accordingly submission has been made in
support thereof.
9
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
30. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-wife
has expressed her willingness to accept dissolution of
marriage, provided she is paid a sum of ₹ 30,00,000 (Rupees
Thirty Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony in full and
final settlement of her claims. The respondent-husband,
however, has stated that he is financially incapable of paying
such an amount, and has offered to pay ₹ 10,00,000 (Rupees
Ten Lakhs only). His salary has been disclosed as ₹ 57,634/-
per month.
31. This Court has interacted with both parties. It is
evident that while the appellant-wife is agreeable to the decree
of divorce subject to receipt of permanent alimony, the
respondent-husband has pleaded financial incapacity. No
consensus has therefore been reached between the parties.
32. This Court in the aforesaid backdrop facts and
submission requires to consider as to “ what would be the
quantum of permanent alimony to meet the needs of the
appellant/wife on the basis of pleadings available on record?”
33. 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
10
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order
that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his
maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly
or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the
applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income
and other property, if any, the income and other property of
the applicant, it may seem to the court to be just, and any
such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on
the immovable property of the respondent. For ready
reference, Section 25 of the Act, 1955 is quoted as under:
“ 25. Permanent alimony and maintenance .—(1) Any court
exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing
any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application
made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as
the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the
applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross
sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding
the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s
own income and other property, if any, the income and other
property of the applicant 1 [the conduct of the parties and other
circumstances of the case], it may seem to the court to be just,
and any such payment 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
11
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
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].”
34. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that concept
of permanent alimony as provided under Section 25 have been
enacted with the object of removing the hardship of the wife
or the husband with no independent income sufficient for
living or meeting litigant expenses; such a leave can be
granted as well who may also be deprived of the same on proof
of having sexual intercourse outside the wedlock. It is also
settled position of law that the Court may grant permanent
alimony to the party while disposing of the main application
even if application has been moved; meaning thereby the
intent of the Act is to remove the handicap/hardship of a wife
or husband by passing an appropriate order at the
appropriate stage either under Section 24 or 25 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. The basic behind this is to sustain the life
of husband or wife, if having no sufficient source of income.
35. 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
12
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
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.
36.
Thus, a power is conferred on the Matrimonial Court
to grant permanent alimony or maintenance on the basis of a
decree of divorce passed under the Hindu Marriage Act even
subsequent to the date of passing of the decree on the basis
of an application made in that behalf. Sub-section (2)
of Section 25 confers a power on the Court to vary, modify or
rescind the order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 in
case of change in circumstances. The power under Sub-
section (3) of Section 25 is an independent power. The said
power can be exercised if the Court is satisfied that the wife
in whose favour an order under Subsection (1)
of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made has not
remained chaste. In such event, at the instance of the other
party, the Court may vary, modify or rescind the order under
Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
37. 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:
13
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
“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.”
38. We may note here that a substitution has been brought to
Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act with
th
effect from 27 May 1976. Earlier, it was provided under Sub-
section (3) of Section 25 that if the Court was satisfied that the
party in whose favour an order has been made has not remained
chaste, it shall rescind the order. The words “it shall rescind the
order” appearing in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 were replaced
by the said amendment by the words “it may at the instance of
the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order …..”. The
legislature in its wisdom by the said substitution has provided
that after the facts stated in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of
the Hindu Marriage Act are established, the Court may vary,
modify or rescind any such order under Sub-section (1)
of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, after 1976, there
is a discretion conferred on the Court by Sub-section (3)
14
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of declining to rescind,
vary or modify the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25
thereof, even if on an Application made by the husband/wife, it
is established that the husband/wife has not remained chaste
after the decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-section (1)
of Section 25.
39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinny Parmvir
Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 while
appreciating the core of Section 25 of the Act 1955 has observed
that for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse,
the respondent's own income and other property, and the
income and other property of the applicant are all relevant
material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other
circumstances of the case, for ready reference the relevant
paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
12. As per Section 25, while considering the claim for permanent
alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the 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
15
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
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.
40. It needs to refer herein that no arithmetic formula can be
adopted for grant of permanent alimony to wife. However, status
of parties, their respective social needs, financial capacity of
husband and other obligations must be taken into account. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U . Sree v. U. Srinivas , (2013)
2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting permanent
alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot
be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of
the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity
of the husband and other obligations. For ready reference the
relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
33. We have reproduced the aforesaid orders to highlight that the
husband had agreed to buy a flat at Hyderabad. However, when
the matter was listed thereafter, there was disagreement with
regard to the locality of the flat arranged by the husband and,
therefore, the matter was heard on merits. We have already
opined that the husband has made out a case for divorce by
proving mental cruelty. As a decree is passed, the wife is entitled
to permanent alimony for her sustenance. Be it 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)
16
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
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.
41. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. [(2021) 2 SCC 324]
the Hon’ble Apex Court has extensively dealt with the issue of
granting interim/permanent alimony and has categorically held
that the objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to
ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution
or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not
as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket
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
17
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as
under:
77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure
that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy
on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to
the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the
quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the
status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent
children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally
qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of
income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the
same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial
home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage;
whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage;
whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment
opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after
adult members of the family; 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,
18
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The
plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income
ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife
if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications.
[ReemaSalkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5
SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]
81.
A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant
factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial
disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the
standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her
matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008)
1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount
awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two
extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so
extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the
respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to
penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the
wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
42. 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 .
43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Jyot
Maini (supra), while discussing the husband's obligation to
19
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
maintain the wife and the importance of his financial capacity
in deciding the quantum, observed under para 26 that:-
"26. Furthermore, the financial capacity of the husband is a
critical factor in determining permanent alimony. The Court shall
examine the husband's actual income, reasonable expenses for
his own maintenance, and any dependents he is legally obligated
to support. His liabilities and financial commitments are also to
be considered to ensure a balanced and fail maintenance award.
The court 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."
44. 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
20
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
status; personal expenses of each of the parties; their individual
capacities and duties to maintain their dependents; the quality of
life enjoyed by the wife during the subsistence of the marriage;
and such other similar factors. This position was laid down
by this Court in Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar,
and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal."
45. 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.
46. 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
21
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial
Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the respondent-
husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the
appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son,
along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Trial
Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the
matrimonial suit, finding that the respondent-husband had
failed to prove cruelty. Aggrieved, the respondent filed FAT No.
122 of 2015 before the High Court of Calcutta. During the
pendency of the appeal, the appellant-wife filed CAN No. 4505
of 2025 seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- for
herself and Rs. 20,000/- for the son, along with Rs. 50,000/-
towards litigation expenses. The High Court, by order dated
14.05.2015, directed the respondent-husband to pay interim
maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Subsequently, by
order dated 14.07.2016, the High Court noted that the
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
22
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
and their son to continue residing in the said flat; and
continue to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000/- per
month to the appellant-wife, subject to a 5% increase every
three years. Additionally, the High Court directed payment of
educational expenses for the son's university education and
Rs. 5,000/- per month for private tuition.
47. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the
appellant-wife approached the Hon’ble Apex Court.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. In response, the respondent-husband submits that
his current net monthly income is Rs. 1,64,039/-, earned
23
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
from his employment at the Institute of Hotel Management,
Taratala, Kolkata. He has placed on record salary slips, bank
statements, and income tax returns for the year 2023-2024.
It is further stated that he was earlier employed with the Taj
Hotel, drawing a gross annual salary of Rs. 21,92,525/-. He
also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs.
1,72,088/-, and that he has remarried, has a dependent
family, and aged parents. The respondent-husband contends
that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially
dependent.
51. 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.
24
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
52. Therefore, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, a sum
of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable
to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. The said
amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two
years. As regards the son, now aged 26, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has expressed its view that the Court is not inclined to
direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is
open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him
with educational or other reasonable expenses. It has been
clarified that the son's right to inheritance remains
unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may
be pursued in accordance with law.
53. 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
25
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a
reassessment of the amount.
8. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would
be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the
appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of
5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not
inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However,
it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with
educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son's
right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or
other property may be pursued in accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order
of the High Court is modified to the extent that the permanent alimony
payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month,
subject to a 5% increase every two years, as noted above.”
54. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of
law this Court is now re-adverting to the factual aspects of the
instant case.
55. It is admitted fact that the marriage of appellant-wife
and respondent-husband was solemnized on 30.04.2021 at
Muzaffarpur (Bihar) according to Hindu rites and customs
prevailing in their society in presence of friends and relatives
of both the sides and the respondent-husband has filed the
suit for divorce 11.08.2023 i.e., after 02 years of marriage, on
the ground of cruelty and desertion.
56. The suit filed for divorce by the respondent-husband
has been allowed, against which the present appeal has been
filed.
57. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the parties,
on instruction, has submitted that there is no chance of re-
26
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
union since the respondent-husband has solemnized second
marriage.
58. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted
that since the respondent has solemnized second marriage
and did not want to live with her, as such the parties agreed
for settlement by way of permanent alimony. Accordingly,
affidavit has been filed on behalf of appellant-husband
showing his income etc.
59. We have perused the affidavit filed by the
respondent-husband annexing therewith ITR of the
respondent-husband for the last three years.
60. It has been stated in the affidavit at paragraph 11
that the respondent-husband is a civil court employee having
salary of Rs.57634/- and after deduction of G.P.F. and
professional tax he is getting salary in hand to the tune of
Rs.54,454/-.
61. This Court, taking into consideration, the salary of
the respondent-husband, is of the view that the respondent-
husband has constant source of income but the appellant-
wife is to survive on the amount of interest to be received from
the amount of permanent alimony and the future inflation etc.
is also required to be kept in mind before allowing the
permanent alimony.
62. Further it requires to refer herein that in
maintenance proceedings it is of primary importance that the
27
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
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.
63. Such assessment of income may be of two kinds. In
cases where documentary evidence such as salary slips, bank
statements, or income tax returns are available, the Court can
take the actual income as discernible from the record.
However, in many cases, husband either fail to disclose his
true income, conceal relevant details, or claim to be
unemployed despite indications to the contrary. In such
circumstances, the Courts must make a reasonable and fair
assessment of the husband’s income, taking into account his
educational qualifications, professional background, past
employment, lifestyle, bank transactions, and other material
placed on record.
64. 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
28
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
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.
65. 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 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.
66. 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
29
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
relationship itself and cannot be shifted upon her parents,
however well-off they may be.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. Thus, the principle governing grant of permanent
alimony is that it must be fair, reasonable, and commensurate
30
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
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.
70. The respondent has stated in his affidavit that he is
ready to pay Rs.10,00,000/ as one time settlement but the
appellant-wife, who is only 23 years of age, has submitted
before this Court that she is ready for settlement on the
amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and therefore, taking into
consideration the life expectancy of a female in India which is
70 years approximately, the permanent alimony is to be
calculated for next 47 years as the appellant-wife who is 23
years of age. Now, if only Rs.4500/- per month is calculated
for 47 years, it would come to Rs.25,00,000/- approximately.
71. 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 affidavit filed by
the respondent-husband and found therefrom that the
respondent’s income for the last Assessment year is about
Rs.5,75,740/-. Whereas on the other hand, the appellant-wife
has to survive for his livelihood solely on the amount of
permanent alimony so given by the respondent-husband.
72. This Court, taking life expectancy of the wife and the
status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of
31
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for
his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to
maintain under the law and statute vis-à-vis the fact that the
amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as
she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and
mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her
husband, is of the view that a minimum amount of Rs. 25
lakhs would be just and proper.
73. This Court is conscious that the respondent-
husband is also to survive and he has other liability and
responsibility but it is also his utmost duty to maintain the
standard of life of the appellant-wife, she would have enjoyed
during subsistence of the marriage as per income and status
of her husband, the respondent herein.
74. It needs to refer herein that there is no rigid
mathematical formula to determine maintenance. However,
the Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey
Chowdhury (Supra) observed that around 25 per cent of the
husband's net salary may serve as a reasonable benchmark,
though this is not a universal rule. Courts generally assess
the paying spouse's "free income", allowing deductions only
for statutory liabilities such as income tax or provident fund,
while disregarding voluntary expenses like equated monthly
instalments (EMIs) on loans or insurance premiums.
32
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
75. Considering the monthly salary of the respondent-
husband at Rs.57,634/-, his obligations, and the reasonable
requirements of the appellant-wife, this Court is of the view
₹
that a lump sum of 25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs
only) would be just, fair, and reasonable as permanent
alimony. This amount balances the financial capacity of the
husband with the legitimate entitlement of the wife to secure
the future of the appellant-wife, who has no other source of
income other than the amount of alimony so received from the
respondent-husband for her livelihood and sustenance.
76. The said amount shall be paid by the respondent-
husband 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 two months from
today.
77. 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 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.
78. This Court, however, hope and trust that the
respondent husband will not invite such situation and will
33
2026:JHHC:14740-DB
abide by the direction so passed by this Court for permanent
alimony in favour of appellant-wife.
79. Accordingly, the order/judgment dated 04.01.2024
and decree signed on 12.01.2024 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit
No.837 of 2023, is hereby affirmed and the marriage is
dissolved, subject to the final payment of alimony to the tune
of Rs.25,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs], as directed by
this Court.
80. With the aforesaid the directions and observations,
as made hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed and
decreed in the above terms.
81. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands
disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated : 12/05/2026
Birendra / A.F.R.
Uploaded on 14.05.2026
34