Determination of permanent alimony must reflect the wife's accustomed standard of living and long-term inflationary costs.

The appellant (wife) and respondent (husband) married on 04.02.2019

The husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging non-consummation, mental cruelty, and a false POCSO case filed by the wife’s mother prior to marriage.

He further alleged the wife had an illicit affair with one Aftab Ansari and attempted to kill him by sprinkling kerosene.

The Family Court, Hazaribagh, granted a decree of divorce on 04.06.2024.

During the pendency of the First Appeal, the husband solemnized a second marriage.

Consequently, the wife sought permanent settlement in terms of alimony rather than challenging the dissolution, citing her lack of independent income and dependence on her father.

1. Whether the conduct of the parties and the husband's second marriage necessitate the grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

2. What is the just and reasonable quantum of permanent alimony considering the financial status, properties of the husband, and the future needs of the wife?

The Court primarily applied Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which empowers the court to grant permanent alimony at the time of passing a decree or thereafter, considering the income, property, and conduct of the parties.

It relied on the principles from *Rajnesh v. Neha* (2021) regarding the objective of preventing vagrancy and the requirement for disclosure of assets via affidavit.

It further cited *Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar* (2011) to establish that alimony should enable the wife to maintain a standard of living similar to her matrimonial home

and *Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan* (2025) regarding the adjustment of alimony for inflation.

The Court analyzed the financial reports submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, which revealed that the husband resided in a double-storied building and benefited from a family-run commercial supply business and approximately 30 kathas of land.

Conversely, the wife was unemployed, possessed no property, and was entirely dependent on her father.

The Court reasoned that since the husband had already remarried, reconciliation was impossible.

Applying the "status of parties" test, the Court determined that the alimony must account for the wife's young age (22 years) and a life expectancy of roughly 50 more years, factoring in future inflation.

The Court balanced the husband's new family liabilities against his duty to provide a one-time settlement that ensures the wife does not fall into penury.

The Court held that a sum of ₹35,00,000 (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs) is a just and fair one-time settlement for the wife.

The respondent-husband was directed to pay this amount in four equal installments over 12 months, with the first installment due within one month of the order.

The wife was granted liberty to approach the court if the payments are not credited as directed.