Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Chandra Bhakat vs Smt. Rupa Rani Kumar on 22 April, 2026
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 90 of 2025
Gopal Chandra Bhakat, son of Sri Sukhram Bhakat, aged about 34
years, resident of Dayal City, Govindpur, PO and PS: Govindpur,
Town-Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand, permanent
resident of village Bhurkadih, Asanboni, PO and PS: Jadugora, District-
East Singhbhum, State-Jharkhand. ..... ...Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rupa Rani Kumar, wife of Gopal Chandra Bhakat, daughter of Sri
Nagendra Nath Kumar, aged about 30 years, resident of village
Durkasai, PO Asanboni, PS Jadugora, District East Singhbhum,
Jharkhand. .... ...Respondent/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON’BLEMR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHAY
——-
For the Appellant : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate;
Mr. Bhaswat Prakash, Advocate
———
C.A.V. On: 30.3.2026 PRONOUNCED ON:22.04.2026 Prayer
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984is directed against the judgment dated 15.5.2024 and decree dated
22.5.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional
Family Court-II, Jamshedpur, Camp Court, Ghatsila in Original Suit No.
593 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the Suit filed by the appellant under
Sections 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been
dismissed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the petition filed under
Section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the
petitioner/appellant, needs to be referred herein which are as under:
1 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
(i)The petitioner’s [the appellant herein] case, in brief, is that
marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on
19.04.2014, as per Hindu rites and customs at the house of the
parents of the respondent in village Dorkasai, PO: Asanboi,
District East Singhbhum. After the marriage, the appellant and
the respondent led a conjugal life at the house of the appellant.
(ii) It has been stated that the marriage between the parties was
negotiated without any dowry and that the petitioner, his parents
or his relatives have never demanded any dowry and the
respondent is in possession of her entire streedhan.
(iii) It has further been stated that the marital relation was not
compatible and pleasant since the day of marriage and the reason
for the same is squarely attributable to the respondent/wife who
has been disrespectful, non-cooperative from the very beginning
of the marriage. There had also been vital difference of opinion
and mind as well as other differences between the appellant and
the respondent on account of status as well as mannerism and
behaviour.
(iv) It has further been stated that after a few days of marriage,
the respondent, without informing anyone or without taking
consent, left the house of the appellant on 11.09.2015, and since
then has been living separately without maintaining conjugal
relationship without any cause or sufficient reason.
(v) The petitioner/appellant on account of the cruelty meted out
by the respondent as well as desertion, filed an Informatory
Petition under section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
2 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
1973, being Informatory Petition No. 1232 of 2015 dated
30.11.2015 and thereafter the appellant preferred a petition under
section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. The learned Family Judge has issued notice upon the respondent-wife,
who appeared and filed written statement admitting the factum of marriage
with the petitioner-appellant.
4. After taking into consideration the pleadings of the both the parties the
learned Family Court have framed altogether six issues which are as
follows: –
(i) Is the Suit is maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has got valid cause for the Suit?
(iii) Whether the petitioner has suffered cruelty at the hands of the respondent?
(iv) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner prior to two years from
the date of filing of this Suit?
(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of
cruelty and desertion?
(vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief or reliefs?
5. The evidences have been laid on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter,
vide order dated 15.05.2024, the judgment has been passed dismissing the
Suit by holding that the petitioner/husband is not entitled to get relief as
claimed.
6. Against the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been filed.
7. The matter was taken up by this Court and on 20.02.2026 both the
parties had submitted that there is chance of settlement by reunion. This
Court while taking into consideration the aforesaid submission has directed
both the parties to remain physically present on 11.03.2026, for ready
reference the order dated 20.02.2026 is being quoted as under:
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-husband and learned
counsel for the respondent-wife.
3 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
2. Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that there
appears to be some chance of settlement by reunion.
3. Considering the same, this Court has thought it proper to interact
with the parties.
4. Accordingly, let this matter be listed on 11th March, 2026.Both the
parties are directed to remain physically present on that day.
8. Accordingly, matter was taken up on 11.03.2026 wherein the
husband-appellant has stated that he is not interested for re-union by
carrying the marital status with the responded-wife. However, the
responded-wife has submitted that she still wants to carry out the marital
status with the appellant-husband. Thereafter, the appellant-husband has
submitted that he requires some time to reconsider the issue of re-union.
9. This Court while taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions
and ratio rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v.
Neha” reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 directed both the parties to file
affidavit showing the entire worth both moveable and immoveable
property, for ready reference the order dated 11.03.2026 is being quoted as
under:
“1. In view of the order dated 20th February, 2026 both the parties
are remain physically present before this Court.
2. The husband-appellant, namely Gopal Chandan Bhakat has stated
that he is not interested for re-union by carrying the marital status
with the responded-wife. However, the responded-wife, namely Smt.
Rupa Rani Kumar has submitted that she still wants to carry out the
marital status with the appellant-husband. 3. Subsequently, the
appellant-husband has submitted that he requires some time to
reconsider the issue of re-union.
4. This Court, however, is of the view that in the meanwhile, i.e.
during the period of rethinking to continue the marital status as the
husband has stated, an affidavit is required to be filed in view of the
judgment passed in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha” reported in (2021) 24 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DBSCC 324, showing the entire worth both moveable and immoveable
property including the pay slip along with the statement of the
account. The similar affidavit shall also be filed on behalf of the
respondent-wife.
5. List this case on 30.03.2026
10. Accordingly, the instant matter was listed before this Court on
30.03.2026 and on that day argument was concluded and judgment was
reserved on point of alimony, for ready reference the order dated
30.03.2026 is being quoted as under:
1. In compliance of order dated 11.3.2026 an affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the appellant-husband. The copy of the same has also
been handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent-wife.
2. Let the aforesaid affidavit be taken on record.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has
submitted that in the light of the order dated 11.3.2026 an affidavit
has already been filed. I.A. No. 5257 of 2025
4. The present interlocutory application has been filed under section 5
of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 233 days in filing the
present appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Having been satisfied with the reasons stated in paragraph nos. 4,5
and 6 of the present interlocutory application, we are inclined to
condone the delay of 233 days in filing of the present appeal.
7. Accordingly, delay of 233 days in filing the present appeal is hereby
condoned.
8. Consequently, the present interlocutory application stands allowed
and disposed of. F.A. No. 90 of 2025
9. Arguments concluded on the point of alimony.
10.Order reserved.
11. Thus, from the aforesaid orders quoted and referred hereinabove, the
parties have shown their willingness to settle the matter on the issue of
5 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DBalimony and, accordingly, they have filed their affidavits regarding their
source of income and existing property.
12. Accordingly, the matter proceeded on the point of determination of
permanent alimony without going into the merit of the impugned judgment.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner/appellant:
13. It has been submitted that admittedly the parties are living separately
since long and hardly stayed together since marriage and hence there is no
chance of restoration of their matrimonial life as such, the only question
remains is with respect to alimony.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he will not argue
the case on merit and he is ready on the point of alimony for one time
settlement.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has submitted that he is
working on the post of LDC/Typist in the Uranium Corporation of India
Ltd.(UCIL) from which he is currently getting gross salary of Rs-65,534/-
which would be evident from the pay slip of the month of February
annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit which has been filed by the
petitioner/appellant in compliance of the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by
this Court.
16. The learned counsel has further stated that after deduction under
different heads his net salary is Rs. 40,073/- and further the
petitioner/appellant has responsibility of his ailing parents and, therefore,
the petitioner himself facing the financial constrain.
6 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent-wife:
17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has
submitted that though the respondent-wife intends to reside with the
appellant but the appellant does not want to keep her. However, on the offer
being made by learned counsel for the appellant for final settlement by way
of permanent alimony, submission has been made that she has no source of
income to survive.
18. Further submission has been made that the appellant is working in the
UCIL and getting handsome gross salary about Rs-65,000/-per month and
by this way even the provident fund and other savings are there for the
appellant’s present necessity and also for his future necessity besides
salary. But the life of the respondent is at a very pitiable condition.
19. On the point of permanent alimony, submission has been made that
the salary of the appellant would increase after every six months on
increase of Dearness Allowance and every year on account of annual
increment and further there will be huge amount of hike in salary due to
forthcoming Pay-Commission(s) and promotion(s)/ACP/MACP and even
after retirement the appellant-husband would get huge amount of retiral
benefit but the respondent-wife has to survive on the interest earned on the
permanent alimony granted in favour of the respondent. Therefore,
considering the life expectancy of 70 years and the fact that the respondent-
wife is about 30 years of age, submission has been made that at least
substantial amount would require for survival of respondent/wife on the
interest earned from that.
7 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
20. Therefore, submission has been made that considerable amount of
maintenance be directed to be paid to the respondent-wife so that she can
live in reasonable comfort considering the status and mode of life she
would have used to live when she was living with appellant-husband.
21. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that he
also does not want to go into the merit of issue and the respondent is ready
to settle the issue on the point of alimony and, lastly, he has submitted that
the respondent-wife has no source of income to survive.
Analysis:
22. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and had gone
through the findings recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned
judgment.
23. The admitted fact herein is that the Suit has been filed under Sections
13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce
on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
24. In order to substantiate and establish his case, the appellant examined
himself as PW-1 and Lakhi Rani Pal as PW-2. The respondent on the other
hand examined herself as RW-1 and her father Nagendra Nath Kumar as
RW-2.
25. The evidences have been laid on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter,
vide order dated 15.05.2024, the judgment has been passed by the learned
Family Court dismissing the Suit by holding that the
petitioner/appellant/husband is not entitled to get relief as claimed.
26. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment passed by the learned
family court, the appellant-husband has preferred the present appeal.
However, after appearance of the respondent-wife, the parties have agreed
8 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
for permanent alimony and, accordingly, submission has been made in
support thereof.
27. This Court in the aforesaid backdrop, facts and submissions requires
to consider as to “what would be the quantum of permanent alimony to
meet the needs of the respondent/wife on the basis of pleadings available
on record?”
28. 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 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 the9 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DBcourt 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 of the other party vary, modify or
rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just].”
29. 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.
30. 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
10 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
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 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.
31. 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 on 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 Sub section (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.
32. 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:
“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,11 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DBmodify 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.”
33. We may note here that a substitution has been brought to Sub-section
(3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act with effect from 27th May
1997. 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) 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.
12 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
34. 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 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.
35. 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
13 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
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) 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.
36. 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
14 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
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 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
15 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
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, 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. [Reema Salkan 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.
37. 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.
16 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Jyot Maini (supra), while
discussing the husband’s obligation to 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.”
39. 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 status; personal expenses of each of
the parties; their individual capacities and duties to maintain their17 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DBdependents; 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.”
40. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan
Vs. Raja Sadhukhan [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259] has enhanced the
amount of alimony subject to increase of alimony on every two years.
41. 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 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
18 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
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 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.
42. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the appellant-wife
approached the Hon’ble Apex Court.
43. 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
19 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim
order.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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
20 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
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.
47. 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.
48. 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 on maintenance as the sole means of
financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.
21 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
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.”
49. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is
now re-adverting to the factual aspects of the instant case.
50. It needs to refer herein that when petitioner/appellant had filed suit for
dissolution of marriage then the respondent wife had filed a maintenance
case being O.M. Case No. 34 of 2018 wherein vide order dated 09.10.2024,
the learned Family Court has passed direction upon the petitioner/appellant
to pay amount of Rs. 12,000/- from date of application dated 12.02.2018 to
the respondent wife along with payment of arrears.
51. The appellant against the said order dated 09.10.2024 has preferred a
criminal revision being Cr. Revision No. 561 of 2025 before the single
Judge of this Court and vide order dated 26.06.2025 passed by this Court
the operation of the order dated 09.10.2024 has been stayed and the said
revision application is still pending for final adjudication.
52. In the instant case herein, in terms of the judgment rendered by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajneesh v. Neha &Anr., (supra), the
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant-husband annexing
therewith the details of salary, bank statement showing the details of salary
22 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
and other perks, annexing therewith the salary slip and bank statement as
also the details of movable and immovable property i.e. 16 decimal land on
name of his mother.
53. We have perused the affidavit filed by the appellant-husband
wherefrom it is evident that the appellant is working in the UCIL on the
post of LDC/Typist. From the salary slip of February, 2026, it is evident
that his gross salary Rs. 65,534/-. It suggests that he is living in government
accommodation with all amenities. Further, there is deduction in the gross
salary in different head including provident fund which accrued in his PF
Account and as per the salary slip his net salary is Rs-40073/-
54. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that since he has
taken loans from different financial institution, as such he is in financial
constrain and in support thereof relevant documents have been annexed
with the affidavit which has been filed in pursuance of the order dated
11.03.2026.
55. It requires to refer herein that in maintenance proceedingsit 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 source of income, the focus naturally shifts to theincome of
the husband, which becomes the foundation for fixing the amount of
maintenance payable.
56. Such assessment of income may be of two kinds. In cases where
documentary evidence such as salary slips, bank statements, or income tax
23 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
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.
57. 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
fixed towards the sustenance of those who are entitled to be maintained.
58. 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.
24 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
59. Further, in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain: (2017) 15 SCC 801,
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.
60. 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 can she 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.
61. 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.
25 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
62. In the aforesaid backdrop, herein this Court has perused the
documents related to the loan accounts wherefrom it is evident that most of
the loan has been availed by the petitioner/appellant from year 2022
onwards, i.e, after filing of the maintenance case by the respondent in year
2018. Further, deduction in gross salary under the head of provident fund
will amount to future saving for the appellant/husband and, as such, the
said deduction under the head of provident fund will amount to add on in
the net salary.
63. The appellant has annexed ITR for the Assessment Year 2023-24,
2024-25 and 2025-2026 wherein the total income has been shown to be
Rs.4,75,200 for the Assessment year 2023-24. Similarly, the total income
for the Assessment Year 2024-25has been shown to be Rs.6,87,590/- and
the Rs. 6,90,810 for the Assessment Year 2025-26.
64. Submission has been made on behalf of respondent-wife that the
salary of the appellant increases after every six months on increase of
Dearness Allowance and every year on account of annual increment and
further there will be huge amount of hike in salary due to forthcoming Pay
Commissions and promotions/ACP/MACP and even after retirement the
appellant-husband would get huge amount of retiral benefit but the
respondent-wife has to sustain herself on the interest earned on the quantum
of permanent alimony granted in favour of the respondent.
65. Further submission has been made that considering the life expectancy
of 70 years and the fact that the respondent-wife is about 30 years of age;
and further taking into consideration the future inflation etc. a considerable
amount would require for survival of the respondent wife.
26 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
66. 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 appellant-husband and found therefrom
that his gross salary is Rs. 65,534/- per month, which included basis pay of
Rs. 38,810/-; Dearness Allowance of Rs. 18,186/-; Transport Allowance of
Rs. 1000/-; and common allowance of 8538/-.
67. Further, the appellant is only about 35 years old, taking his date of
birth to be 14.02.1991, as reflected in the pay-slip and he would be in
service for long 24 years of service from now and after retirement a huge
amount on account of retiral benefit he would get and even in service he
would be availing all the facilities as available for employees of UCIL.
Whereas on the other hand, the respondent-wife has to survive for his
livelihood solely on the amount of permanent alimony so given by the
appellant-husband. At present, the respondent-wife is about 30 years and
taking into life expectancy of even 70 years, she has to survive for long 40
years on the amount of permanent alimony given by her husband beating
the inflation etc.
68. As per submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-
wife, even taking life expectancy and multiplied by the 1/3 of the salary it
comes to more than 90 lakhs but as per the settled connotation of law this
Court while deciding the quantum of permanent alimony has to take care of
the present capacity and responsibility of the appellant/husband also.
69. This Court is conscious that the appellant-husband is also to survive
and he has other liability and responsibility but vis-Ã -vis it is also his
utmost duty to maintain the standard of life of the respondent-wife as she
27 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
would have enjoyed during subsistence of the marriage as per income and
status of his husband the appellant herein.
70. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court thought it proper that a sum of
Rs. 40,00,000/- [Rs. Forty Lakhs] in total as one-time permanent alimony
would be just, fair and reasonable, for sustenance of the respondent-wife,
who has no other source of income than the alimony so received by the
appellant-husband.
71. In such view of the matter, the appellant-husband is directed to pay a
sum of Rs. 40 lakhs [Forty Lakhs], which shall be paid by him in three
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 one month
from today.
72. 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.
73. This Court, however, hope and trust that the appellant husband will
not invite such situation and will abide by the direction so passed by this
Court for permanent alimony in favour of respondent-wife.
74. Accordingly, the impugned order/judgment dated 15.5.2024 and
decree dated 22.5.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge,
Additional Family Court-II, Jamshedpur, Camp Court, Ghatsila in Original
Suit No. 593 of 2017is hereby quashed and set aside, subject to the final
payment of alimony, as directed by this Court.
28 F.A. No. 90 of 2025
2026:JHHC:12146-DB
75. With the aforesaid the directions and observations, as made
hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed of and decreed in the above
terms.
76. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated: 22 /04/2026
KNR/A.F.R.
Uploaded On:24 /04/206
29 F.A. No. 90 of 2025