Jharkhand High Court
Lalmuni Devi vs Naresh Oraon on 20 July, 2026
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 201 of 2025
------
Lalmuni Devi, Aged about 25 years, W/o Naresh Oraon,
D/o Suresh Oraon, resident of Village-Mail, P.O. Matlong,
P.S. Manika, District-Latehar. ... ... Appellant
Versus
Naresh Oraon, Aged about 33 years, S/o Rajendra Oraon,
resident of Village-Goa, P.O. Jalim, P.S. Latehar, District-
Latehar, present residing at S.S.B. 40th Battalion at
Danapur, Balaji, Balaji Nagar, New Tarachak, P.O. and P.S.
Danapur, District-Patna, Bihar-801503.
... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate
: Ms. Tanya Raj, Advocate
: Mr. Chiranjeev Mahto, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 06.07.2026 Pronounced on 20/07/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family
Court Act, 1984, is directed against the order/judgment dated
22.11.2022 and decree signed on 06.12.2022 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Latehar in Original
Suit No. 28 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed
by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage by
decree of divorce u/s 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 against the appellant-wife, has been allowed.
1
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
Factual Matrix
2. The respondent-husband, on the ground of cruelty
and desertion, had filed an application under Section 13(1)
(i-a) (i-b), of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family
Court for a decree of divorce against his lawfully wedded wife
and the same was numbered as the Original Suit No. 28 of
2021.
3. The case was admitted for hearing.
4. Upon notice, the appellant-wife appeared in the suit
proceeding and filed her written statement.
5. The learned Family Judge has taken into
consideration the pleading made by the respondent-husband
in the plaint as also the written statement filed by the
appellant-wife.
6. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned
counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the
material available on record, has framed only two issues for
adjudication of the lis, which are being referred as under:-
“I. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty, harassment and desertion as alleged in the
petition?
II. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any reliefs?”
7. Thereafter, the case proceeded for evidence during
which the respondent-husband has examined five witnesses
including himself as well as exhibited some documents.
2
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
8. On the other hand, the appellant-wife has also
examined five witnesses including herself.
9. The learned Principal Judge, Family court, after
appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of parties, came
to the conclusion that the respondent-husband, has been able
to prove and substantiate the factum of cruelty meted out to
him by the defendant-wife and that the appellant-wife has
deserted him, as such it was held that the husband, the
respondent herein, is entitled to get a decree of divorce,
against which, the instant appeal has been preferred by the
wife-appellant.
10. Thereafter, the matter was heard by this Court on
23.04.2026 and on that date, after hearing learned counsel
for the parties, this Court was of the view that since the
respondent-husband has solemnized second marriage and
therefore re-union of both the parties is not possible, as such,
now the only order is to be passed on the issue of permanent
alimony as mandated under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.
11. Accordingly, both the parties were directed to file
their respective affidavits in view of the judgment rendered in
the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. [(2021) 2 SCC 324]
giving therein the details of their source of income both
movable and immovable.
3
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
12. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, the
appellant-wife, has filed affidavit dated 10.06.2026 stating
inter alia therein that she is unemployed and assists her
mother in running her roadside vegetable stall and seasonal
income from which is Rs.200 to 300/- daily.
13. The respondent-husband has also filed affidavit
dated 25.06.2026 in this appeal wherein he has stated that
after getting decree of divorce by judgment dated 22.11.2022,
he has performed marriage with another lady after lapse of
more than two years of the judgment, i.e., on 11.01.2025.
14. The affidavit has been filed by the appellant
disclosing his income etc. and accordingly the matter has
been heard on the point of determination of permanent
alimony without going in to the merit of the impugned
judgment.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
though the appellant intends to reside with the respondent
but since the respondent/husband has now solemnized
second marriage and not ready to keep her, as such the only
question remains for alimony.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
he will not argue the case on merit and prayed that the matter
4
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
may be resolved by providing the alimony for one time
settlement.
17. Lastly, he has submitted that the appellant-wife has
no source of income to survive.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
submitted that he also does not want to go into the merit of
issue and the matter may be decided taking into consideration
the fact that the respondent is Constable whose gross
monthly salary is Rs.66,097/- and net pay is Rs.40,354/- out
of which Rs.10,000/- per month is being deducted from his
salary and directly paid to the appellant-wife as maintenance
as per the order passed by the learned court in the
maintenance case.
Analysis:
19. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
parties and gone through the material available on record.
20. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment passed
by the learned family court, the appellant-wife has preferred
the present appeal. However, after appearance of the
respondent-husband, the parties have agreed for permanent
alimony and accordingly submission has been made in
support thereof.
5
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
21. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-wife
has expressed her willingness to accept dissolution of
marriage, provided she is paid permanent alimony in full and
final settlement. The respondent-husband, however, has
stated that he is a low paid Constable and his gross monthly
salary is Rs.66,097/- and net pay is Rs.40,354/-.
22. This Court has interacted with both parties. It is
evident that while the appellant-wife is agreeable to the decree
of divorce subject to receipt of permanent alimony, the
respondent-husband has pleaded financial incapacity. No
consensus has therefore been reached between the parties.
23. This Court in the aforesaid backdrop facts and
submission requires to consider as to “what would be the
quantum of permanent alimony to meet the needs of the
appellant/wife on the basis of pleadings available on record?”
24. 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
6
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
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 of
the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such
manner as the court may deem just].”
7
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
25. 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.
26. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the
intent of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act in catena of
Judgments wherein it has been observed that Section 25 of
Act 1955 is an enabling provision. It empowers the court in a
matrimonial case to consider facts and circumstances of the
spouse applying and deciding whether or not to grant
permanent alimony. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 provides
that a matrimonial Court exercising the jurisdiction under
the Hindu Marriage Act may at the time of passing a decree
8
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
or at any time subsequent thereto on an Application made to
it, order to pay maintenance.
27. 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.
28. 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:
9
2026:JHHC:21427-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.”
29. 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 1976. Earlier, it was provided under Sub-
section (3) of Section 25 that if the Court was satisfied that the
party in whose favour an order has been made has not remained
chaste, it shall rescind the order. The words “it shall rescind the
order” appearing in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 were replaced
by the said amendment by the words “it may at the instance of
the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order …..”. The
legislature in its wisdom by the said substitution has provided
that after the facts stated in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of
the Hindu Marriage Act are established, the Court may vary,
modify or rescind any such order under Sub-section (1)
of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, after 1976, there
is a discretion conferred on the Court by Sub-section (3)
10
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of declining to rescind,
vary or modify the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25
thereof, even if on an Application made by the husband/wife, it
is established that the husband/wife has not remained chaste
after the decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-section (1)
of Section 25.
30. 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 obliged11
2026:JHHC:21427-DBto 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.
31. It needs to refer herein that no arithmetic formula can be
adopted for grant of permanent alimony to wife. However, status
of parties, their respective social needs, financial capacity of
husband and other obligations must be taken into account. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013)
2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting permanent
alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot
be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of
the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity
of the husband and other obligations. For ready reference the
relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
33. We have reproduced the aforesaid orders to highlight that the
husband had agreed to buy a flat at Hyderabad. However, when
the matter was listed thereafter, there was disagreement with
regard to the locality of the flat arranged by the husband and,
therefore, the matter was heard on merits. We have already
opined that the husband has made out a case for divorce by
proving mental cruelty. As a decree is passed, the wife is entitled
to permanent alimony for her sustenance. Be it stated, while
granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be
adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall
depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social12
2026:JHHC:21427-DBneeds, 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.
32. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. [(2021) 2 SCC 324]
the Hon’ble Apex Court has extensively dealt with the issue of
granting interim/permanent alimony and has categorically held
that the objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to
ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution
or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not
as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket
formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the Court while
considering the issue of maintenance, should consider the
factors like the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the
wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated
and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any
independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient
to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant
was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working
13
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
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
dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the
14
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
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.
33. 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.
15
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
34. 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.”
35. 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 of16
2026:JHHC:21427-DBmaintenance 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 their dependents; the quality of
life enjoyed by the wife during the subsistence of the marriage;
and such other similar factors. This position was laid down
by this Court in Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar,
and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal.”
36. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan [2025 SCC
OnLine SC1259] has enhanced the amount of alimony
subject to increase of alimony in every two years.
37. 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
17
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
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
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
18
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
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.
38. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the
appellant-wife approached the Hon’ble Apex Court.
39. 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.
40. 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
19
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
awarded is not commensurate with the standard of living
maintained by the parties during the marriage.
41. In response, the respondent-husband submitted 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.
42. The Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of the quantum
of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court has come to the
conclusion that it requires revision. The said revision is on the
basis of the respondent-husband’s income, financial
disclosures, and past earnings which establish that he is in a
position to pay a higher amount. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed that the appellant-wife, who has remained
unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of
maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she
enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures
20
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
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.
43. 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.
44. 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 the21
2026:JHHC:21427-DBHigh 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.”
45. 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 source
of income, the focus naturally shifts to the income of the
22
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
husband, which becomes the foundation for fixing the
amount of maintenance payable.
46. 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.
47. 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.
23
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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
24
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
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.
51. 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.
52. 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 the
husband, nor can it leave the wife without adequate financial
security.
25
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
53. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of
law this Court is now re-adverting to the factual aspects of the
instant case.
54. It is admitted fact that the marriage of appellant-wife
and respondent-husband was solemnized on 12.02.2017 at
Village Mail, P.S.-Manika, Dist-Latehar in accordance with
Adivasi (Oraon) custom prevailing in their society in presence
of friends and relatives of both the sides.
55. The respondent-husband has filed the suit for
divorce on 23.07.2021 i.e., after 04 years of marriage, on the
ground of cruelty and desertion.
56. The suit filed for divorce by the respondent-husband
has been allowed, against which the present appeal has been
filed.
57. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the parties,
on instruction, has submitted that there is no chance of re-
union since the respondent-husband has solemnized second
marriage.
58. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted
that since the respondent has solemnized second marriage
and did not want to live with her, as such the parties agreed
for settlement by way of permanent alimony. Accordingly,
affidavit has been filed on behalf of appellant-husband
showing his income etc.
26
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
59. We have perused the affidavit filed by the
respondent-husband annexing therewith salary slip of the
respondent-husband for the month of May, 2026.
60. It has been stated in the affidavit at paragraph 13
that out of his gross salary of Rs. 66,097/-, Rs. 21,883/- is
being deducted per month against his home loan, Rs. 2,350/-
is being deducted for his ELI, Rs. 3,000/- is being deducted
against his PPF, Rs. 18,000/- is being given to the appellant
against the maintenance and arrears amount per month.
61. This Court, taking into consideration, the salary of
the respondent-husband, is of the view that the respondent-
husband has constant source of income but the appellant-
wife is to survive on the amount of interest to be received from
the amount of permanent alimony and the future inflation etc.
is also required to be kept in mind before allowing the
permanent alimony.
62. The appellant-wife, as per her affidavit, is only 28
years of age and taking into consideration the life expectancy
of a female in India is 70 years approximately and, therefore,
the permanent alimony is to be calculated for next 42 years.
63. The learned Family Court, in Original Maintenance
Case No.9 of 2020 has awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/-
per month and if Rs.10,000/- per month is calculated for next
42 years, it would come to Rs.50,00,000/- approximately.
27
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
64. This Court, considering the submissions advanced
on behalf of parties and law laid by Hon’ble Apex Court as
referred hereinabove, has again perused the affidavit filed by
the respondent-husband and found therefrom that the
respondent’s gross salary is Rs. 66,097/- per month whereas
on the other hand, the appellant-wife has to survive for his
livelihood solely on the amount of permanent alimony so given
by the respondent-husband.
65. This Court, taking life expectancy of the wife and 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 vis-Ã -vis the fact that the
amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as
she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and
mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her
husband, is of the view that a minimum amount of Rs. 30
lakhs would be just and proper.
66. This Court is conscious that the respondent-
husband is also to survive and he has other liability and
responsibility but it is also his utmost duty to maintain the
standard of life of the appellant-wife, she would have enjoyed
during subsistence of the marriage as per income and status
of her husband, the respondent herein.
28
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
67. It needs to refer herein that there is no rigid
mathematical formula to determine maintenance. However,
the Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey
Chowdhury (Supra) observed that around 25 per cent of the
husband’s net salary may serve as a reasonable benchmark,
though this is not a universal rule. Courts generally assess
the paying spouse’s “free income”, allowing deductions only
for statutory liabilities such as income tax or provident fund,
while disregarding voluntary expenses like equated monthly
instalments (EMIs) on loans or insurance premiums.
68. Considering the monthly salary of the respondent-
husband at gross salary of Rs. 66,097/-, his obligations, and
the reasonable requirements of the appellant-wife, this Court
is of the view that a lump sum of ₹30,00,000 (Rupees Thirty
Lakhs only) would be just, fair, and reasonable as permanent
alimony. This amount balances the financial capacity of the
husband with the legitimate entitlement of the wife to secure
the future of the appellant-wife, who has no other source of
income other than the amount of alimony so received from the
respondent-husband for her livelihood and sustenance.
69. The said amount shall be paid by the respondent-
husband in four equal installments within a period of 12
months from the date of passing of the order and first
29
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
installment shall be paid within a period of two months from
today.
70. This Court, considering the factual aspect involved in
the case and particularly the fact that due to financial crunch
the survival of the appellant-wife may not get disturbed,
grants liberty to the appellant-wife that if the amount is not
credited to her account, as per the direction passed by this
Court, she will be at liberty to approach the court of law in
accordance with law.
71. This Court, however, hope and trust that the
respondent husband will not invite such situation and will
abide by the direction so passed by this Court for permanent
alimony in favour of appellant-wife.
72. Accordingly, the order/judgment dated 22.11.2022
and decree signed on 06.12.2022 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Latehar in Original Suit No. 28
of 2021, is hereby affirmed and the marriage is dissolved,
subject to the final payment of alimony to the tune of
Rs.30,00,000/- [Rupees Thirty Lakhs], as directed by this
Court.
73. With the aforesaid the directions and observations,
as made hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed and
decreed in the above terms.
30
2026:JHHC:21427-DB
74. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands
disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated: 20/07/2026
Birendra/A.F.R.
Uploaded on 21.07.2026
31
