01Facts
The parties were married on April 30, 2021
¶ 55In 2023, the respondent-husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion
¶ 2The Family Court, Dhanbad, proceeded ex parte and granted the decree of divorce on January 4, 2024
¶ 1, 4During the pendency of the appeal, the parties attempted mediation, which partially succeeded regarding the return of gifted articles but failed on the quantum of permanent alimony
¶ 15, 31The appellant sought ₹30,00,000, asserting the husband had remarried, while the husband, a civil court employee earning approximately ₹57,634 per month, offered ₹10,00,000
¶ 18, 20, 30, 6002Issues
i.1. Whether the marriage is to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty and desertion?
¶ 6ii.2. What would be the just and fair quantum of permanent alimony to meet the needs of the appellant-wife based on the husband's income and social status?
¶ 3203Law Applied
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which empowers courts to grant permanent alimony based on the respondent's income, property, and the conduct of the parties
¶ 33Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, establishing that alimony should enable the wife to live in reasonable comfort commensurate with her matrimonial status
¶ 39Rajnesh v. Neha, which dictates that maintenance should prevent destitution without becoming oppressive for the husband
¶ 41Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, noting that 25% of the husband's net salary is a reasonable benchmark for alimony
¶ 37, 74Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13Section 25Section 24
Special Marriage Act, 1954 Section 27
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 125
04Reasoning
The Court noted that since the husband had allegedly remarried and the wife agreed to the dissolution subject to alimony, the primary focus shifted to the quantum of settlement under Section 25
¶ 27, 31The Court assessed the husband's financial capacity, noting his stable career as a civil court employee with a monthly salary of ₹57,634
¶ 60The 23-year-old appellant has no independent source of income and a life expectancy of approximately 47 more years
¶ 70Applying a pragmatic calculation, the Court observed that even a modest monthly requirement of ₹4,500 over her remaining life expectancy would total approximately ₹25,00,000
¶ 70The Court reasoned that alimony must account for future inflation and the high cost of living while ensuring the wife is not reduced to penury, balancing the husband's "free income" against the wife’s total lack of sustenance
¶ 61, 71-7505Holding
The High Court affirmed the decree of divorce but modified the terms of the settlement, ordering the respondent-husband to pay a lump sum of ₹25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs) as permanent alimony
¶ 75, 79This amount is to be paid in four equal installments over 12 months, with the first installment due within two months of the order; the appeal was disposed of with liberty to the wife to approach the court if payments are not credited
¶ 76, 77, 80Original Court PDF
SANDHYA KUMARIvsMITHILESH KUMAR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
