Jharkhand High Court
Anjali Kumari @ Anjali Devi Aged About 33 … vs Sunil Kumar Paswan Son Of Sudheshwar … on 6 August, 2026
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No.100 of 2023
Anjali Kumari @ Anjali Devi aged about 33 years daughter
of Upendra Paswan, Wife of Sunil Kumar Paswan resident
of Tilouthu, P.O. and P.S. Tilouthu, District Rohtas Bihar
...Appellant/Defendant
Versus
1. Sunil Kumar Paswan Son of Sudheshwar Paswan
resident of Purna Chatra, P.O. and P.S. Tatisliwai,
District Ranchi.
2. IG-cum-PCSC/RPF/GPF-43, S.E.Railway, P.O. & P.S. -
1, Taratola Road, Kolkata, PIN- 700024
... ...Respondent/Plaintiff
-------
CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate
Mr. Nilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the UOI : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to ASGI
----------------------------
CAV/Reserved on 10.07.2026 Pronounced on 06/08/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court
Act, 1984 is directed against order/judgment dated
29.01.2018 and decree signed on 06.02.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court,
Ranchi in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 86 of 2016, whereby
and whereunder the learned Additional Principal Judge has
allowed the suit filed by the petitioner/respondent herein
under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
grant of decree of divorce.
Brief facts of the case:
1
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the
original suit, needs to be referred herein reads, which reads
as under:
3. The marriage between the parties where solemnized on
14.07.2013 before the Marriage Registrar, Sasaram and
subsequently on 22.01.2014 under Hindu Rights and
Rituals at Village Tilouthu, District Rohtas Bihar in presence
of friend and relatives of both the parties and the marriage
was duly consummated. Out of the said wedlock and
consummation of marriage, the appellant gave birth to male
child on 08.04.2015.
4. It is the case of the petitioner-husband that at the time of
marriage gold ornaments worth Rs.85,000/- was given by
the husband to the wife. After marriage she came to her
matrimonial home and stayed their properly for only three
days. It is alleged that thereafter appellant-wife demanded to
go to her father’s house which resulted in quarrel between
the parties. However, somehow the plaintiff-husband
managed to let her understand and then left for his place of
work at Kharagpur, West Bengal.
5. It is further case of the petitioner-husband, the respondent
herein that the appellant-wife without informing any one of
her in-laws family, behind the back of the plaintiff, on
27.01.2014 called her father and brother Prince and become
2
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
adamant to leave her in-laws house, that too without any
reason. On coming to know about the activity of the
defendant, the plaintiff called her on phone, whereupon she
started saying that she does not want to live with her in-laws
and wants to go to Kharagpur. The act of the defendant
compelled the plaintiff to take her there. However, just
staying for 10-11 days the defendant had dehydration and
was admitted in railway hospital. The plaintiff on seeing the
physical condition of the defendant deteriorating, called his
mother and brother to look after her. But the defendant after
returning from the hospital started quarrelling with the
plaintiff. The defendant-wife on getting fully cured called her
father on 27.04.2014 and went to her father’s home. The
defendant on being asked by the plaintiff the reason for
leaving for her house, she simply put the unwarranted
blame upon the plaintiff and his family members and
straight away denied living with him. It was repeatedly
threatened by the defendant and her family members to
implicate the plaintiff and entire family in a false case. The
plaintiff in order to save his matrimonial life as well as to
save the reputation of his family, went to Tilauthu on
18.06.2014 to bring her back. He repeatedly begged before
the defendant and his in-laws to allow her to go with him.
However, only on the condition that she will stay at
Kharagpur, she sent with the plaintiff. But again after
3
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
passing of 1½ month she again started putting pressure
upon the plaintiff, that she wants to go to her father’s home
and if he doesn’t allow her then she will commit suicide. On
04.08.2014, while the plaintiff was on escort duty at Tata, he
received a call from his father-in-law that the defendant has
fled away from his home. He immediately informed his
friends Amit Kumar Prasad and Mukesh Kumar Das to
search her and finally she was recovered from a telephone
booth 2KM away from his quarter. When the plaintiff
returned from his duty and asked the reason about the
above incident she started quarreling with him, she even cut
her hand with her bangle. At about 11 PM she told that she
has consumed all the medicines which were on the table and
she is going to die, hence allow to her talk with her family,
which the plaintiff did and with the help of his friends
admitted her in railway hospital. In the hospital at
Kaharapur, he had to execute a bond as the matter was of
committing suicide. On 05.08.2014 defendant’s uncle
Akhilesh Paswan went to Kharagpur and met with the
plaintiff’s duty in-charge, where he tried to misguide the
duty in-charge on false and fabricate grounds against the
plaintiff. After the above incident the plaintiff along with the
defendant came back to Ranchi and called his in-law for a
meeting. Instead of resolving the matter the defendant’s
elder sister, father, brother prince and his friend came on
4
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
22.08.2014 and took her with them. Plaintiff contacted her
on phone. On which she threatened that she is not going to
join him and will implicate him and his entire family in false
case. At that time she was carrying one month pregnancy.
That on 20.09.2014 the plaintiff along with his father and
mother went to his in-laws home to fetch, the defendant
back but she flatly refused, as a result, plaintiff parents
return to Ranchi and the plaintiff stayed there in a hotel
with a hope that she will come with him. Finally on being
convinced by the neighbors and the plaintiff, she return to
Ranchi but both of them came out of the bus at Katatoli Bus
Stand, the defendant tried to flee away. Somehow plaintiff
managed to take her home at Tatisilway. The defendant
while staying her plaintiff’s house at once tried to flee away
and when she was restrained she cut her hand with her
bangles and hit her abdomen with the bottle filled with
water, which caused heavy pain. She was taken to doctor,
where she was advised for complete bed rest. On 27.02.2015
the defendant’s father and grand-mother came to Ranchi
with an intend to take her back but the plaintiff somehow
restrained them from doing so. On the very night of
27/28.02.2015, the defendant again started hitting her
abdomen and due to severe pain she was taken to Dr.
Geetanjali on 28.02.2015. At Dr. Geetanjali’s dispensary, the
plaintiff went to an ATM for taking out some money and
5
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
when return he found that the defendant is missing. The
plaintiff apprehended some mishappening, informed his
family member and his friends and went to Tatisilway police
station, where he found his father-in-law lodging complaint
against the plaintiff and his family members that they have
killed the defendant. Against that complain the officer-in-
charge of Tatilsilway police station went to the plaintiff’s
house and threatened them that if within 48 hours the
defendant was not trashed out then they (plaintiff and his
family members) will be put behind bars. Due to the above
incident, the entire family members of the plaintiff came
under tremendous shock and was apprehending something
wrong. The plaintiff in his house found that the defendant
had taken away all her ornaments along with Rs.20,000/-
with her. On 01.03.2015 the defendant’s father instead of
informing the plaintiff that she has reached home safely,
informed the Tatisilway police from where the plaintiff came
to know about the safe arrival of the defendant. Since the
date of the above incident the plaintiff and his family
members where under apprehension that the defendant and
her family members may cause harm to them in any
manner, due to staying out for a long period from duty, the
plaintiff was thrashed by his seniors to sacked from the
service, which has put the plaintiff under mental tension.
6
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
6. It is further case of the petitioner-husband that the
defendant-wife while staying at her in-law home at Ranchi,
was never being cordial with any one of the family members
of the plaintiff. She used to rebuke the plaintiff and his
family members in filthy language, sometime she used to
come out the house shouting on the plaintiff and his family
members in presence of the neighbors, she got no respect for
any of the family members of the plaintiff.
7. There has been a repeated mental torture from the end of
the defendant and her family members towards the plaintiff,
which have put the plaintiff under mental depression.
However, the plaintiff with a hope to live a peaceful
matrimonial life, all the time tried to convince the defendant
but she never respected his emotions and shattered all his
hopes.
8. Further statement has been made that the plaintiff and the
defendant lastly resided husband and wife till 28.02.2015
when the defendant without information fled away and never
returned.
9. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiff-husband, the
respondent herein, had filed the suit wherein prayer had
been made to pass a decree for dissolution of marriage in
favour of the petitioner/ respondent herein.
7
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
10. Before the family court, on being noticed, the respondent-
wife/ appellant herein appeared but did not file written
statement, as such the learned Additional Family Court
debarred the respondent-wife from filing written statement.
11. The petitioner-husband adduced evidence in support of his
case before the Family Court.
12. The learned family court, allowed the suit filed by the
petitioner-husband filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce.
13. The respondent-wife (appellant herein) being aggrieved with
the order passed by the learned family court has approached
this Court by filing the instant appeal.
14. On being noticed by this Court, the respondent-husband has
appeared and contested the appeal.
15. It would be apt to mention herein that while the matter was
being heard by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court
on 20.03.2025, submission has been made by learned
counsel for the appellant-wife that since no permanent
alimony has been awarded in favour of the
husband/respondent herein while granting a decree of
divorce in favour of the respondent, it will suffice if
permanent alimony is worked out by consultation with the
parties.
8
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
16. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench, considering the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
has observed that since respondent-husband has already
solemnized another marriage and the impugned judgment
does not indicate that the question of permanent alimony
was considered and in view of the fair suggestion advanced
by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, direction
was passed for appearance of appellant and the respondent
on the next date of hearing. For ready reference, order dated
20.03.2025 is quoted as under:
“It has been submitted by Mr. Hemant Kumar
Shikarwar, learned counsel for the appellant that since no
permanent alimony has been awarded in favour of the
appellant while granting a decree of divorce in favour of the
respondent, it will suffice if permanent alimony is worked out
by consultation with the parties.
Mr. Anukul Gaurav, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent husband submits that he has to take instructions
in this matter.
In view of the fact that the respondent has already
solemnized another marriage and the impugned judgment
does not indicate that the question of permanent alimony was
considered and in view of the fair suggestion advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we direct that the
appellant and the respondent to be physically present before
us on 23.04.2025 at 10:30 a.m.
List this case on 23.04.2025.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned
counsel for the respective parties.”
17. When the matter was taken up on 23rd April, 2025, the
parties have submitted that they are ready for settlement in
9
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
terms of permanent alimony but the amount of money which
was offered by the respondent-husband was not agreeable to
the appellant-wife for her survival and survival of son aged
about 10 years born out of the wedlock of appellant and
respondent.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant drawing attention of the
Court that the respondent-husband is working in RPF under
the Indian Railways and as such prayer was made to
implead the Indian Railway as party. Accordingly, the matter
was adjourned.
19. When the matter was taken up, the Interlocutory Application
being I.A. No. 5791 of 2025 filed for impleading IG-cum-
PCSC/RPF/GPC-43 S.E. Railway as party-respondent was
pressed.
20. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant
and particularly the fact that even after order having been
passed for payment of maintenance amount under Section
125 Cr.P.C., the same is not being paid and it reached to the
amount more than Rs. 17 lakhs, directed to implead IG-
cum-PCSC/RPF/GPC-43 S.E. Railway as party-respondent
to the proceeding. For ready reference, order dated 22nd
December, 2025 is quoted as under:
I.A. No. 5791 of 2025:
10
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
1. None presents to represent the respondent, however, Mr.
Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, learned counsel is present on behalf of
the appellant.
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed in
pursuance of the reference made in the order dated 23rd April,
2025 for impleadment of IG-cum-PCSC/RPF/GPC-43 S.E.
Railway P.O. and P.S. 1, Taratola Road, Kolkata PIN-700024
as respondent No. 2.
3. The reason for filing of impleadment application has been
taken note by this Court in order dated 23rd April, 2025 as
under Paragraph 2 thereof which is referred herein:
“1. Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, learned counsel has
submitted that the appellant-wife is being represented by
him and she is ready for settlement but the amount which
has been offered by the respondent-husband is a meagre
amount, i.e., to the tune of Rs.2 lakh but subsequently,
Rs.5 lakhs has been offered.
2. It has been submitted that the age of the appellant is 31
years and she is having with a male child having the age
of 10 years and she is having no means of income.
Submission has also been made that the respondent
husband is working in the RPF under the Indian Railways
and is getting a handsome salary. Therefore, it is not the
case of survival of the wife rather survival of the male
child as also the future avenues are involved, therefore.
She is not agreeing with the said meagre amount of Rs.5
lakh.
3. The prayer has been made, in view of the aforesaid
backdrop, that liberty may be given to file an application
for impleadment of the appointing authority.
4. Considering the said submission, the matter is being
adjourned to be listed on 05.05.2025 so that the
application as per the prayer made by the appellant, be
filed on or before the next date of hearing.”
4. The further reason, as per the submission made by Mr.
Shikarwar, learned counsel for the appellant is that even the
maintenance amount as was directed to be paid by passing
11
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. now has amounted to Rs.
17 lakhs and 10 thousand has also not been paid as yet.
5. Considering the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view
that IGcum-PCSC/RPF/GPC-43 S.E. Railway P.O. and P.S. 1,
Taratola Road, Kolkata PIN-700024 is to be impleaded as
party. 6. As such, the instant interlocutory application being
I.A. No. 5791 of 2025 stands allowed and disposed of.
7. Let the necessary addition be made in the arrays of the
respondent.
8. Let notice be issued upon the newly impleaded respondent,
both under ordinary and registered cover with A/D/ Speed
Post, requisites for which to be filed within a week.
9. The Office is directed to take steps for the service of notice.
10. Notice is made returnable on 29th January, 2026.”
21. Accordingly, the matter proceeded and the parties advanced
their arguments.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant-wife
22. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife showing the conduct
of the respondent-husband has submitted that in the case of
bail application preferred by the respondent-husband before
the Patna High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 41651 of 2016,
bail was granted on 22.09.2016 on the undertaking of
respondent-husband that he is ready to withdraw the
matrimonial suit filed for decree of divorce. On that pretext,
the appellant was assured that the suit filed by her husband
[respondent herein] would be withdrawn and keeping the
appellant as also the Court in dark, the suit was not
withdrawn rather, it was contested by the respondent-
12
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
husband wherein the learned family Court passed ex-parte
order against the appellant-wife by allowing the suit.
23. Further submission has been made that the appellant-wife,
for the first time, came to know about the decree of divorce
passed in favour of respondent-husband while respondent-
husband was adducing evidence in Maintenance Case No.
35 of 2016 on 08.07.2022, when he stated in his
examination-in-chief that he is ready to keep the appellant
with him if she lives with him properly but in the cross-
examination he has stated that he re-married after getting
divorce.
24. Submission has been made that after playing fraud with the
appellant-wife, since the respondent-husband has re-
married as such now the only grievance remains with
respect to the quantum of permanent alimony considering
the fact that 11 years male child born out of the wedlock of
the appellant and respondent are residing with the
appellant-wife and further the fact that the respondent-
husband is working in Railway Police Force having
handsome salary.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has further submitted
that she has no means to survive along with the son but on
the alimony to be given by the respondent-husband.
13
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
26. Further submission has been made that since for the last 10
years no financial support has been extended by the
respondent-husband, as such she has taken admission of
her son not in a good school rather in a below average school
due to deficiency of fund and even on this also more than
Rs. 3000/- per month she has to spend. At paragraph 7 of
the supplementary affidavit filed by her she has stated that
at present on an average Rs. 25,000/- per month has to
spend on her livelihood and her son.
27. At paragraph 8, she has further deposed that appellant had
borrowed the amount for her month to month expenditure
from her married sisters as a long with a promise to return
the same in future.
28. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
the learned Family Court, Rohtas Sasaram has passed order
dated 03.05.2025 directing the respondent-husband to pay
Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of
filing of the case i.e., 09.03.2016 but the respondent-
husband has not made payment of the same and only Rs.
45,000/- has been paid till date out of the total arrear of Rs.
17,55,000/- [Seventeen lakhs and fifty five thousand].
29. Further submission has been made that the respondent is
working in the Indian Railway since 2017 i.e, for about 20
years and by this way even the provident fund and other
14
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
savings are there for the respondent’s present necessity and
also for his future necessity besides salary. But the life of the
appellant and their son who is living with the appellant is at
a very pitiable condition.
30. Submission has been made that son is only 11 years old, as
such she has to spend a large chunk of amount on the
education of the son and his other necessity.
31. Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn attention
of the court towards salary slip of the respondent, which is
of the November, 2025, shows that the respondent has gross
salary of Rs.106539/- [One Lakh six thousand five hundred
and thirty nine].
32. On the point of permanent alimony, submission has been
made that the salary of the respondent would increase after
every six months on increase of Dearness Allowance and
every year on account of annual increment and further there
will be anticipated hike in salary is possible due to
forthcoming 8th Pay-Commission(s) as also on being getting
promotion(s)/ACP/MACP and even after retirement the
respondent-husband would get good amount of retiral
benefit but the appellant-wife and their son, who is living
with his mother, has to survive on the interest earned on the
permanent alimony granted in favour of the appellant.
Therefore, considering the life expectancy of 72 years and
the fact that the appellant-wife is only 35 years of age,
15
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
submission has been made that sufficient one time amount
be awarded which would require for survival of both the wife
and son on the interest earned from that amount.
33. Therefore, submission has been made that considerable
amount of maintenance be directed to be paid to the son as
also the appellant-wife so that they can live in reasonable
comfort considering the status and mode of life they would
have used to live when they lived with respondent-husband.
Submission on behalf of respondent-husband:
34. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-husband has submitted that he tried his best to
keep her wife [appellant] but she fled away to her parental
house on her own and despite several efforts being taken by
him, she did not return.
35. It has further been submitted that after grant of bail by
Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 41651 of 2016, he took
her wife [appellant] with him but again the appellant started
abusing and mentally torturing the petitioner/respondent
and again fled away to her paternal house.
36. Further submission has been made that after getting divorce
from the appellant he performed second marriage as per law.
37. So far as the issue of permanent alimony is concerned,
affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-husband,
wherein it has been stated that he is working as Constable
16
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
in the Railway Protection Force [RPF] and his sole source of
income is the monthly salary received from the said
employment.
38. Referring to the salary-slip annexed with the affidavit, it is
stated that the respondent’s gross monthly salary is
Rs.1,06,539/-.
39. So far immovable property is concerned, statement has been
made that he has no land; house; flat or plot in his name
nor is he is in possession of any immovable asset.
40. Further submission has been made that he is the sole
bread-earner of his family and his mother, father and his
wife [second wife]; are fully dependent on him. However,
statement has been made that his father is a retired police
personnel and receives a monthly pension of Rs. 21,636/-,
however, in proof thereof no document has been annexed
therewith.
41. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband, has made
statement regarding his liabilities in the affidavit and has
stated that substantial amount of money he has to spend on
monthly rent for accommodation; transportation and for
other household expenditure; monthly medical expenditure
on the family members; liability towards second wife;
additional liabilities towards making expenditure on pending
criminal cases. Besides, at 8 (iv) of the affidavit he has stated
17
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
that currently, he paying Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim
maintenance towards appellant-wife. It has been stated that
in total about Rs. 70,000- Rs.73,000/- per month
expenditure he has incur on him and on his family members
and very little disposable income at the end of each months
remains.
42. Submission has been made that divorce has already been
granted by learned family court in favour of respondent
herein and from the findings of the impugned order, it is
evident that respondent-husband was not at fault rather the
matrimonial relationship had irretrievably broken down
solely due to the acts and conduct of the wife. Therefore, the
question of grant of permanent may be considered in the
light of findings of the learned Family Court and the conduct
of the appellant-wife.
43. Further submission has been made that appellant-wife is a
healthy and able-bodied person fully capable of maintaining
herself and earning her livelihood and as such she cannot
saddle the husband with an excessive and unreasonable
financial burden particularly when the respondent himself is
surviving on a limited income and supporting multiple
dependents.
Analysis:
18
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
44. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the pleading available on record as also the finding
recorded by learned Additional Principal Judge, Addl. Family
Court, Ranchi and other materials available on record.
45. This Court before proceeding further needs to refer herein
the factual aspect of the matter.
46. Marriage of the parties was solemnized on 14.07.2013. Out
of the said wedlock, one male child was born on 08.04.2015.
47. Ground has been taken by the respondent-husband before
the learned family court for grant of decree of divorce that
the appellant-wife many times leaved his house [matrimonial
house] without consent of the husband and used to put
unwarranted blame upon the respondent-husband and his
family members and repeatedly threatened him and his
family members to implicate in a false case. Further
statement has been made that the respondent-husband take
several steps to restore the marital life but the appellant-wife
did not live with him.
48. Respondent-husband [petitioner before the learned Addl.
Family Court], being aggrieved with the cruelty meted out to
the respondent-husband and his family members, filed suit
before the learned Addl. Family Court, in which, the wife
[appellant herein] appeared but did not file written
statement, as such the suit proceeded ex-parte and decreed
19
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
in favour of respondent-husband by granting decree of
divorce in his favour vide order/judgment dated 29.01.2018
and decree signed on 06.02.2018 passed by the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi
in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 86 of 2016, against which the
instant appeal has been filed.
49. However, after appearance of the respondent-husband, the
parties have agreed for permanent settlement, in view of the
fact that the respondent-husband has re-married and
accordingly submission has been made in support thereof.
50. 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 son and the wife on
the basis of pleadings available on record and as per the
standard of life they would have enjoyed had they been living
with the respondent?
51. 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 by either the wife or the husband, as the case may
be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for
20
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
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
with any woman outside wedlock, 2 [it may at the instance of21
2026:JHHC:23473-DBthe other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such
manner as the court may deem just].”
52. 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 of 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 live of husband or wife, if
having no sufficient source of income.
53. 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
22
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
that a matrimonial Court exercising the jurisdiction under
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.
54. 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.
55. 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:
23
2026:JHHC:23473-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.”
56. We may note here that an amendment has been brought
to Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act by
the Act No. 68 of 1976 with effect from 27th May 1996. 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 amendment 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,
24
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
there is a discretion conferred on the Court by Sub-section (3)
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, it is
established that the wife has not remained chaste after the
decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-section (1) of
57. 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 thatfor 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
25
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
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 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.
58. 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 it26
2026:JHHC:23473-DBstated, 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) 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.
59. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr (supra) 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
27
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
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 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
28
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
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, 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.
60. Further, 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 on every two years.
61. This Court has considered the factual aspect of the said case
and on perusal of the fact, referred therein, it is evident that
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
29
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
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 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
30
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
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; allow the
appellant-wife 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.
62. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the
appellant-wife is approached the Hon’ble Apex Court.
63. 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.
31
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
64. The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs. 20,000/-
per month, which the High Court made final, was originally
awarded as interim maintenance. She submits 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.
65. In response, the respondent-husband submits that his
current net monthly income is Rs. 1,64,039/-, earned 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.
66. 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
32
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
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.
67. 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 that the son’s right to inheritance remains
unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may
be pursued in accordance with law.
68. 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
33
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
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 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.”
69. Further it needs to refer herein that in maintenance
proceedings it is of primary importance that the 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
34
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
source of income, the focus naturally shifts to the income of
the husband, which becomes the foundation for fixing the
amount of maintenance payable.
70. 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.
71. 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 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
35
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
fixed towards the sustenance of those who are entitled to be
maintained.
72. 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.
73. 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
relationship itself and cannot be shifted upon her parents,
however well-off they may be.
74. 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
36
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
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.
75. 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.
76. Thus, the principle governing grant of permanent alimony
is that it must be fair, reasonable, and commensurate 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
37
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
the husband, nor can it leave the wife without adequate
financial security.
77. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law
this Court is now re-adverting to the factual aspects of the
instant case.
78. In the instant case herein, in terms of the judgment
rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v.
Neha & Anr., (supra), the affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the respondent-husband annexing therewith the details of
salary, bank statement showing the details of salary and
other perks, annexing therewith the salary slip and bank
statement as also the details of movable and immovable
property.
79. We have perused the affidavit filed by the respondent-
husband wherefrom it is evident that the respondent is
working as Constable in the Railway Protection Force [RPF]
since 2007 i.e., for a long period of 20 years.
80. From the salary slip annexed with the affidavit, it is evident
that the respondent’s gross monthly salary is Rs.1,06,539/-
and net Salary for the month of November, 2025 is
Rs.98631. However, the respondent-husband denied to have
any immovable property in his name.
81. So far liabilities are concerned, submission has been made
that he is the sole bread-earner of his family and his mother,
38
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
father and his wife [second wife]; three younger brothers,
who are un-employed are fully dependent on him.
82. However, statement has been made that his father is a
retired police personnel and receives a monthly pension of
Rs. 21,636/-, but, in proof thereof no document has been
annexed therewith.
83. Besides, at 8 (iv) of the affidavit he has stated that currently,
he paying Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance
towards appellant-wife. However, it has been disputed by the
appellant-wife by saying that she is not getting regular
maintenance. She on affidavit has stated that arrears of
maintenance has mounted to Rs. 17,55,000/- [Seventeen
lakhs and fifty five thousand] and out of that only amount of
Rs. 45,000/- has been paid till date.
84. From the pleadings on record, it is evident that as per
direction learned Family Court, Rohtas Sasaram,
respondent-husband has been directed to pay Rs.15,000/-
per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the case
i.e., 09.03.2016. But, it is disputed and submission has
been made by learned counsel for the appellant-wife that in
spite of order being passed by the learned Family Court,
Rohtas Sasaram, maintenance amount has not been paid by
the respondent/husband.
39
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
85. As per submission advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant-wife, even taking her life expectancy and
multiplied by the 1/3 of the salary it comes to huge amount
but taking into account the present capacity of the
respondent, for survival of wife and the son born out of their
wedlock, at least an amount to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-
[Thirty lakhs] would be just and proper besides the arrears
of maintenance as accrued as on date.
86. This Court is conscious that the respondent-husband is also
to survive and he has other liability and responsibility but
vis-à-vis it is also his utmost duty to maintain the standard
of life of the appellant-wife and his son, they would have
enjoyed during subsistence of the marriage as per income
and status of her husband-the respondent herein.
87. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court thought it proper that
a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- [Thirty lakhs] as one-time
permanent alimony, would be just, fair and reasonable, for
sustenance of the appellant-wife and the son born out of
their wedlock for their livelihood, sustenance and study.
88. In view of the foregoing, the respondent-husband is directed
to pay a sum of ₹30,00,000 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only),
which shall be discharged in three equal instalments within
a period of twelve months from the date of this order.
40
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
89. This Court further expresses the expectation that arrears of
maintenance, as ordered by the learned Family Court,
Rohtas at Sasaram, amounting to ₹17,00,000 (Rupees
Seventeen Lakhs only) and odd, as accrued as arrears of
maintenance, shall also be liquidated by the
respondent-husband at the earliest besides the amount of
permanent of alimony as awarded by this Court.
90. It is made explicit that out of the aforesaid sum of
₹30,00,000, the respondent-husband shall cause a fixed
deposit of ₹10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in a
nationalised bank in the name of his son, earmarked for his
education and allied purposes.
91. For abundant clarity, it is declared that the son’s right of
inheritance remains wholly unaffected, and any claim to
ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance
with law.
92. This Court, considering the factual matrix of the case, and
particularly the financial exigencies which may imperil the
sustenance of the appellant-wife and son as well as the
child’s education, grants liberty to the appellant-wife that if
the said amount is not credited to her account, as per the
direction passed by this Court, the appellant-wife will be at
liberty to approach the court of law in accordance with law.
41
2026:JHHC:23473-DB
93. This Court, however, trusts and expects that the
respondent-husband shall not occasion such contingency,
but shall abide by the directions herein for payment of
permanent alimony in favour of the appellant-wife and the
son.
94. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2018 and
decree signed on 06.02.2018 passed by the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi
in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 86 of 2016 stand modified to
the extent indicated above.
95. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the instant
appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
96. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
6th August, 2026
Alankar/A.F.R.
Uploaded on 7.08.2026
42
