Jharkhand High Court
Rinky Singh vs Deepak Singh Ari on 6 August, 2026
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 216 of 2025
------
Rinky Singh, Aged about 36 years, D/o-Mahendra Singh,
R/o - House 5, 13/5 Priyadarshini Parisar west, Motilal
Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Durg, P.O. Nehru Nagar, & P.S. -
Supela, District-Durg, Chattisgarh-490020.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Deepak Singh Ari, aged about 37 years, Son of Late
Pritam Singh Ari, R/o Ram Bhawan, Tata Road, Ward
No. 22, P.O. & P.S. Mofussil, Chaibasa, District West
Singhbhum.
2. The State of Jharkhand through D.C. Chaibasa.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1 : Mrs. Oishi Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
------
C.A.V. on 07.07.2026 Pronounced on 06/08/2026
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
25.03.2025 and decree signed on 05.04.2025 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa in Original Suit No.81 of 2024, 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
1
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant-wife,
has been allowed.
Factual Matrix
2. The marriage between the respondent herein/petitioner
and the appellant/ respondent was solemnized on 28.12.2016
according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Nehru Nagar
Gurudwara, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. The marriage
was an arranged marriage initiated through the matrimonial
website Jeevansathi.com.
3. After marriage, the parties started residing together as
husband and wife. Out of the wedlock, one daughter was
born.
4. The petitioner alleges that after the marriage, differences
arose between the parties on account of incompatibility of
temperament and repeated matrimonial discord. According to
him, the respondent frequently stayed at her parental home
and despite repeated requests, did not return to the
matrimonial home. The petitioner visited the parental house
of the respondent on 18.07.2018 to bring the respondent and
the minor daughter back, but he was allegedly misbehaved
with by the respondent and her family members and
ultimately returned on 22.07.2018.
5. The petitioner has alleged that on different occasions he
transferred amounts of Rs.10,000/- each to the accounts of
the respondent’s mother and brother to meet the respondent’s
2
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
requirements. Despite such efforts, the respondent allegedly
refused to resume cohabitation.
6. Consequently, the petitioner instituted proceedings under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal
rights before the Court,Chaibasa which was registered as
Original Suit No.20 of 2019. During pendency thereof, the
respondent sought transfer of the proceeding before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Transfer Petition (Civil)
No.1167 of 2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the
proceedings and thereafter transferred the case to the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg.
7. Thereafter, several litigations came to be instituted
between the parties. The respondent lodged Supela Police
Station Case No.660 of 2019 under Sections 498A/34 IPC
against the petitioner, his mother and married sister. The
petitioner and his family members obtained anticipatory bail
and subsequently charge-sheet was submitted giving rise to
Criminal Case No.2666 of 2021 before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Durg.
8. The petitioner further alleges that on 23.07.2019 the
respondent along with her family members came to his
residence and forcibly entered the house, assaulted his
mother and removed jewellery from the house. On the basis
of the complaint lodged by the petitioner’s mother, Muffasil
3
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
P.S. Case No.84 of 2019 under Sections 323, 341, 342, 379,
504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC was registered.
9. The respondent also initiated proceedings under Section
125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and the minor
daughter, claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/-
along with litigation expenses. She also instituted proceedings
under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act before the competent Court at Durg.
10. The petitioner, on the other hand, filed proceedings
under Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act
seeking custody and guardianship of the minor daughter.
11. During pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, with
the intervention of elders, well-wishers and learned counsel
appearing for both sides, the parties amicably resolved all
their disputes. The terms of the settlement are as follows:
(a) the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage by
mutual consent;
(b) the petitioner-husband (respondent herein)
agreed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.20,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as one-time permanent
alimony towards full and final settlement of all claims
of the respondent and the minor daughter;
(c) on presentation of the joint petition, the petitioner
paid Rs.10,00,000/- through demand
4
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
drafts/cheques, which the respondent/appellant
herein accepted and encashed;
(d) the petitioner handed over all jewellery belonging
to the respondent except one diamond ring and one
gold ring, which were agreed to be delivered at the
time of second motion;
(e) custody of the minor daughter shall permanently
remain with the respondent;
(f) the petitioner shall have visitation rights, if
mutually agreed between the parties;
(g) both parties agreed to withdraw all pending civil
and criminal proceedings against each other and
their respective family members.
12. Pursuant to the settlement, the petitioner withdrew
the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
and under Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards
Act. Likewise, the respondent withdrew the proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act.
13. The petitioner complied with all the terms and
conditions agreed between the parties for dissolution of
marriage, he paid the half of the permanent alimony amount
agreed and was ready and willing to pay the remaining half
amount agreed. However, the respondent started
blackmailing the petitioner by demanding additional amount
5
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
as permanent alimony and threatened that she would not give
her consent for dissolution of marriage during second motion
and when the petitioner refused to accede to illegal and unjust
demands of respondent, she acted on her threats and refused
to give her consent for dissolution of her marriage and
withdrew her consent. As such the proceeding under Section
13(1)B was dismissed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Durg, vide order dated 25.11.2023 and the respondent
also did not return the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and jewelry
taken by her as per terms and conditions agreed between
them in proceeding under Section 13(B) of the HMA 1955 and
has kept the criminal proceeding bearing Criminal Proceeding
Case No. 2666/2021, pending before the court of the learned
CJM Durg, Chattisgarh.
14. The respondent/ petitioner-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. 81 of 2024.
15. Notice was issued to the respondent through speed
post as well as the petitioner himself served the notice upon
respondent wife but she did not appear before the court.
16. Thereafter, learned Family Court ordered to publish
the notice in daily newspaper widely circulated in Bhilai-
6
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
Raipur, so the notice was published in Dainik Bhaskar
newspaper on 24.11.2024 published from Bhilai-Raipur but
the respondent again did not appear before the court.
17. The court found that all the notices were duly served
upon respondent and the notice was also published in daily
newspaper in Dainik Bhaskar on 24.11.2024 despite that the
respondent evaded herself from court proceeding, so the court
was of the view that notice was presumed to be duly served
upon respondent. The court initiated ex parte proceeding on
20.12.2024 against respondent-wife and the petitioner was
directed to produce evidence documentary and oral, if any.
18. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned
counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the
material available on record, has framed four issues for
adjudication of the lis, which are being referred as under:-
” (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action for filing the suit?
(iii) Whether the respondent wife committed subjected to
physical and mental cruelty with her husband by misbehaving
with him and her mother-in-law and has deserted her
husband permanently to bring cohabitation to an end (animus
deserendi)?
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled visitation right to meet
with his daughter within the scope of section 26 of Hindu
Marriage Act?”
7
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
19. Thereafter, the case proceeded for evidence during
which the respondent-husband has examined five witnesses
including himself as well as exhibited some documents.
20. The learned Principal Judge, Family court, after
appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of petitioner,
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.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
21. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
though the appellant intends to reside with the respondent
but since the respondent/husband is adamant not to live with
the appellant-wife, as such, the only question remains for
alimony.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
he will not argue the case on merit and prayed that the matter
may be resolved by providing the alimony for one time
settlement.
23. Lastly, he has submitted that the appellant-wife has
no source of income to survive.
8
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
24. 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 a compromise was arrived at between the parties,
whereby and where under the parties agreed to file an
application for dissolution of their marriage by mutual
consent and the respondent-husband agreed to pay a
consolidated sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as one-time permanent
alimony towards full and final settlement of all claims of the
respondent and the minor daughter, out of which the
respondent-husband paid Rs.10,00,000/- through demand
drafts/cheques, which the respondent accepted and
encashed.
25. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has
submitted that the respondent-husband is still ready to pay
25,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony.
Analysis:
26. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment passed
by the learned family court, the appellant-wife has preferred
the present appeal.
27. Thereafter, the matter was heard by this Court on
09.04.2026 and on that date, learned counsel for both parties
have consented that in order to explore the possibility of
settlement through reunion, the parties may be called upon.
9
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
28. In view of such submission, this Court called upon
both the parties on the next date of hearing.
29. On 05.05.2026, both parties appeared before this
Court. The Court interacted with them, however, the
respondent-husband remained adamant in his refusal to
reside with the appellant-wife.
30. 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.
31. The Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa was also
directed to submit a report regarding the entire assets of the
respondent-husband and the known/unknown source of
income.
32. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, the
appellant-wife, has filed affidavit dated 09.06.2026 stating
inter alia therein that she has no source of income and she is
completely dependent upon her parents for the expenses of
self and the child.
33. The respondent-husband has also filed affidavit
disclosing his income etc. and accordingly the matter has
been heard on the point of determination of permanent
10
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
alimony without going in to the merit of the impugned
judgment.
34. In pursuance to the direction of this Court dated
05.05.2026, the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa has also
filed affidavit giving therein the details of movable property
and the income of the respondent.
35. However, after appearance of the respondent-
husband, the parties have agreed for permanent alimony and
accordingly submission has been made in support thereof.
36. It is evident from record that during the pendency of
the suit before the learned Family Court, the appellant-wife
has expressed her willingness to accept dissolution of
marriage, provided she is paid Rs.20,00,000/- as permanent
alimony in full and final settlement. The respondent-husband
had also agreed and accordingly Rs. Ten Lakh has been
accepted in form of demand draft and the said demand draft
was encashed by the wife (appellant herein) but later on the
appellant wife withdrew her consent and the matter could not
be settled finally.
37. 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 and the female child on the basis of pleadings
available on record?”
11
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
38. 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 the court to be just, and any such payment12
2026:JHHC:23501-DBmay 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].”
39. 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.
13
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
40. 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
or at any time subsequent thereto on an Application made to
it, order to pay maintenance.
41. 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
14
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
party, the Court may vary, modify or rescind the order under
Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
42. 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, 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.”
43. 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
15
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
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.
44. 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, the16
2026:JHHC:23501-DBrespondent’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.
45. 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
17
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
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.
46. 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
18
2026:JHHC:23501-DBformula 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;
19
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
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 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
20
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
(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.
47. 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.
48. 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 court21
2026:JHHC:23501-DBmust 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.”
49. 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 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.”
22
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
50. 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.
51. 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,
23
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
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
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
24
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
educational expenses for the son’s university education and
Rs. 5,000/- per month for private tuition.
52. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the
appellant-wife approached the Hon’ble Apex Court.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. 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
25
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
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.
56. 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
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.
57. 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
26
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
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.
58. 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.
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 the27
2026:JHHC:23501-DBson, 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.”
59. Further it needs to refer herein that in maintenance
proceedings it is of primary importance that the income of the
spouse is first assessed. 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.
60. Once the income, whether actual or notional, is
determined, the Court must then proceed to apportion the
28
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
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.
61. 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, 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.
62. 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
29
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
Court to assess these narratives not mechanically but
pragmatically, and to arrive at a conclusion that is grounded
in both evidence and social reality.
63. 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.
64. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of
law this Court is now re-adverting to the factual aspects of the
instant case.
65. It is admitted fact that the marriage between the
petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 28.12.2016
according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Nehru Nagar
Gurudwara, Bhilai, District Durg, Chattisgarh and the
respondent-husband has filed the suit for divorce on
04.09.2024 i.e., after 08 years of marriage, on the ground of
cruelty and desertion.
66. The suit filed for divorce by the respondent-husband
has been allowed, against which the present appeal has been
filed.
67. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the parties,
on instruction, has submitted that there is no chance of re-
30
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
union since the respondent/husband is adamant not to live
with the appellant-wife.
68. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted
that since the respondent/husband is adamant not to live
with the appellant-wife and did not want to live with her, as
such the parties agreed for settlement by way of permanent
alimony.
69. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-husband has canvassed that the issue of
permanent alimony ought to be adjudicated by the learned
Family Court, and hence the matter be relegated to the
original forum for determination thereof.
70. In this context, it is apposite to advert to Section 25
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which expressly confers
jurisdiction upon the Court to grant permanent alimony and
maintenance at the time of passing a decree of dissolution of
marriage.
71. It is indisputable that while adjudicating upon
dissolution of marriage, evidence is adduced, and
simultaneously the Family Court is vested with competence
to determine the quantum of alimony necessary for the
sustenance of the spouse who suffers separation consequent
upon such decree.
72. Reference must be made to the authoritative
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v.
31
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
Neha (supra), wherein comprehensive guidelines and
procedural parameters have been delineated for assessing the
quantum of alimony. The said guidelines, already adverted to
in the preceding paragraphs, constitute binding precedent
and must govern the present adjudication.
73. Insofar as the submission advanced on behalf of the
respondent-husband that the issue of alimony be remitted to
the Family Court is concerned, we are unable to accede
thereto. Once the Apex Court has prescribed the format of
affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities for both parties,
the determination of alimony must proceed on the basis of
such affidavits, without relegating the matter afresh.
74. The legislative object underlying Section 25 is
sustenance of the separated spouse. To remit the matter
back, as prayed, would inflict further trauma upon the
appellant-wife, who has already endured the rigours of
litigation since 2019 culminating in dissolution of marriage.
75. Remand to the Family Court would not only be
dilatory but also oppressive for the appellant-wife, prolonging
her ordeal unnecessarily.
76. From the order dated 29 June 2026, it is manifest
that learned counsel for the respondent had agreed to
determination of alimony and even offered a sum of
₹25,00,000/-, which was duly recorded in the said order,
though not accepted by learned counsel for the
32
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
appellant-wife, for ready reference, the order dated 29th June,
2026 is being referred herein :-
“10/Dated:29th June, 2026
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. As a last resort, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent has submitted that his client
is ready for settlement at the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-
(Rs.Twenty Five Lakhs) by way of lump sum amount which
has not been agreed by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has sought
for a week’s time to interact with his client on the issue of
enhancement of the said amount.
4. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the respondent,
list this case on 07.07.2026.”
77. The pivotal question that arises is whether, once this
Court has proceeded to determine the issue of alimony on the
basis of the consent recorded from learned counsel for the
respondent in the various orders referred hereinabove, it
remains open to the respondent at this stage to seek
relegation of the matter to the Family Court for adjudication
of alimony. In our considered view, such a course is
impermissible.
78. It is further pertinent to note that affidavits in terms
of the directions of this Court have already been filed, and at
that juncture no plea for remand was advanced. Indeed, from
the order dated 29 June 2026, it is evident that learned
counsel for the respondent-husband unequivocally submitted
that the respondent was prepared to pay a sum of
33
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
₹25,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony. In light of this
recorded statement, the contention now urged–that the issue
be remitted to the Family Court–cannot be countenanced
and is liable to be rejected.
79. In order to adjudicate upon the quantum of
permanent alimony, this Court has meticulously examined
the affidavit filed by the respondent-husband. It is disclosed
therein that the respondent is engaged in business as sole
proprietor of Indian Trading Company, which undertakes
supply of motor parts and allied equipment. The affidavit
furnishes particulars of his movable assets and is
accompanied by the Income Tax Return for the Assessment
Year 2025-26, thereby evidencing his financial worth and
capacity.
80. It has been stated in the affidavit that the
respondent’s monthly income is Rs.1,80,000/- which is
supported by his Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year
2025-26.
81. The respondent has also annexed documents
showing repayment of loan which he has obtained for his
personal and official use. He has shown total loan of Rs.
1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakhs)
approximately and the total EMI which he pays is
Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eight Thousand) per
month.
34
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
82. The affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Chaibasa contains a notarized affidavit given by the
respondent-husband wherein he has stated that against a
loan of Rs.11,57,998/- which has been taken for purchase of
Hyundai Creta car an EMI of Rs.23,204/- is being paid but
that amount is being paid by his brother-in-law since the said
vehicle is being used by him.
83. Considering this statement of the respondent-
husband to be true, then also the total loan against his name
come to Rs.1,18,00,000/- approximately and the monthly
repayment (EMI) comes to Rs.2,56,000/- approximately.
84. Now the question arises that when the respondent
has stated that he has monthly income of Rs.1,80,000/- how
can he deposit the monthly installment of Rs.2,56,000/-
towards repayment of loan. From the documents annexed
with the affidavit, it is also evident that the respondent has
not defaulted in making repayment of loan.
85. From the documents available on record, it is also
evident that 90% of the total loan has been procured after
filing of the suit for dissolution of marriage.
86. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
the respondent-husband has not shown his actual income in
the affidavit and his actual income is much more than what
he has stated in his affidavit.
35
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
87. At this juncture it needs to refer herein the settled
position of law that the impact of a loan taken by a husband
for “future wealth construction” during the pendency of a
matrimonial suit which consequently reduces his total income
due to loan payments, on the amount of alimony payable to
his wife is a matter that courts scrutinize carefully. Generally,
such voluntary financial commitments are not permitted to
diminish the husband’s primary obligation to maintain his
wife.
88. The husband’s duty to maintain his wife is
paramount. Any voluntary financial liability, such as a loan
for “future wealth construction,” should not be allowed to
diminish this fundamental duty. The wife’s right to
maintenance is often considered paramount. The court will
scrutinize the genuineness and purpose of the loan. If the loan
is taken primarily to reduce disposable income and thereby
evade maintenance obligations, or if the “future wealth
construction” is speculative or solely for the husband’s benefit
without any direct or indirect benefit to the wife or children,
the court may disregard the reduction in income caused by
EMI payments.
89. Courts often consider not just the actual income but
also the earning capacity of the husband. If the loan is
perceived as a deliberate act to reduce visible income despite
a healthy earning capacity, the court may fix maintenance
36
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
based on his potential earnings rather than his artificially
reduced net income. Courts have consistently held that
voluntary deductions or liabilities incurred by the husband,
which are not necessary for his sustenance or statutory
obligations, cannot be used to reduce maintenance payable to
the wife. Repayments of loans, particularly those for asset
creation, are considered voluntary capital investments rather
than essential or unavoidable expenditures.
90. In the case of Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, (2026)
INSC 370 the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically observed
that deductions arising from financial commitments such as
loan repayments, particularly when they contribute towards
the creation of assets, cannot be treated on the same footing
as necessary expenditure to substantially reduce the
husband’s liability for maintenance. The Court emphasized
that the liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation
and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.
It clarified that repayments of loans, especially those resulting
in the creation or acquisition of assets, partake in the
character of capital investment and cannot be equated with
essential or unavoidable expenditure. Such financial
commitments, being voluntary in nature, cannot be given
precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable
obligation of maintenance. For ready reference the relevant
37
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted as
under:
“13. However, deductions arising out of financial
commitments such as loan repayments, particularly where
they contribute towards creation of assets, cannot be placed
on the same footing as necessary expenditure so as to
substantially reduce the liability of maintenance. The
liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation and
cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.
14. It is also not in dispute that the appellant ha no
independent source of income and has been residing
separately shortly after the marriage. The maintenance
awarded must therefore enable her to sustain herself with
a reasonable degree of dignity, consistent with the status of
the parties. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that
the determination remains fair and reasonable and does not
impose an excessive burden upon the respondent. The
exercise is one of achieving a just balance between
competing considerations.
15. Insofar as the financial capacity of the respondent is
concerned, it is borne out from the compliance affidavit filed
pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2026 that the respondent
is employed as a Manager with Canara Bank and is
drawing a gross monthly income of ₹1,15,670/-. The Courts
below have taken note of certain deductions from the said
income, including repayments towards loans. However, it
is well settled that repayments of loans, particularly
where such repayments result in creation or
acquisition of assets, partake the character of
capital investment and cannot be equated with
essential or unavoidable expenditure. Such financial
commitments, being voluntary in nature, cannot be
accorded precedence over the statutory and legally
enforceable obligation of maintenance.
16. The obligation of the husband to maintain his
spouse is a primary and continuing duty, which must
be discharged in a manner that enables the wife to38
2026:JHHC:23501-DBlive with dignity and in a standard commensurate
with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the
marriage. Viewed thus, deductions on account of
asset-generating repayments cannot be permitted to
substantially dilute the respondent’s real earning
capacity for the purpose of determining
maintenance.
91. Based on the consistent judicial pronouncements,
particularly the Supreme Court’s ruling in Deepa Joshi v.
Gaurav Joshi (supra) a loan taken by the husband for “future
wealth construction” during the pendency of a matrimonial
suit, which reduces his income, will generally not affect the
amount of alimony to the wife adversely. Courts view such
loans as voluntary financial commitments or capital
investments that cannot take precedence over the husband’s
primary and statutory obligation to maintain his wife. The
court will assess the husband’s actual earning capacity and
ensure that the wife receives adequate maintenance
commensurate with her needs and the marital standard of
living.
92. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid,
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
39
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
required to be kept in mind before allowing the permanent
alimony.
93. The appellant-wife, as per her affidavit, is only 36
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 34 years.
94. 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
34 years, it would come to Rs.40,00,000/- approximately.
95. This Court, upon due consideration of the rival
submissions and the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court as adverted to hereinabove, has once again scrutinized
the affidavit filed by the respondent-husband. The
respondent, being a businessman and sole proprietor of
Indian Trading Company, has disclosed his financial
particulars and produced acknowledgment of filing of Income
Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2025-2026. From the
said material, it emerges that the respondent’s actual annual
income is ₹21,68,774/- per year. Conversely, the
appellant-wife is left to subsist solely upon the quantum of
permanent alimony to be awarded, her livelihood being
entirely dependent thereon.
96. This Court is conscious that the respondent-
husband is also to survive and he has other liability and
40
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
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.
97. 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.
98. 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 for her sustenance.
41
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
99. In regard to the future welfare of the minor daughter,
aged about eight years, particularly her education and health,
it has been averred in the affidavit filed by the appellant-wife
that the child is suffering from the ailment of urticaria
occasioned by dust allergies. Having given anxious
consideration to the matter, this Court is of the considered
view that a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh only)
shall be secured by the respondent in the form of a fixed
deposit, to be created in the name of the said daughter, within
a period of one year from the date of this order so as to
safeguard her interests.
100. This amount balances the financial capacity of the
husband with the legitimate entitlement of the wife to secure
the future of the minor daughter and appellant-wife, who has
no other source of income other than the amount of alimony
so received from the respondent-husband for their livelihood
and sustenance.
101. In view of the admitted position that, through the
intervention of well-wishers, a settlement had earlier been
arrived at between the parties, pursuant whereto the
respondent-husband paid a sum of ₹10,00,000/- by way of
demand drafts/cheques, which the appellant-wife accepted
and encashed, therefore, it is hereby directed that the
respondent-husband shall pay a further sum of ₹20,00,000/-,
42
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
out of the total ₹30,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to
the appellant-wife.
102. The aforesaid sum of ₹20,00,000/- shall be
disbursed by the respondent-husband in four equal
instalments within a period of twelve months from the date of
this order. The first instalment shall be paid within two
months from today, and the remaining instalments shall
follow at equal intervals thereafter.
103. Further, the respondent shall also ensure that the
instrument of fixed deposit amounting to Rs.30,00,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Lakhs only), created in the name of the minor
daughter pursuant to the directions of this Court, is duly
handed over to the appellant within a period of one year.
104. This Court, upon consideration of the factual matrix
of the case, and particularly bearing in mind that the financial
constraints faced by the respondent-wife ought not to imperil
the sustenance of either herself or the minor daughter, grants
liberty to the respondent-wife that, in the event the aforesaid
amount is not credited to her account or the fixed deposit is
not duly created in the name of the daughter in terms of the
directions herein, she shall be at liberty to seek appropriate
relief before a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance
with law.
105. This Court, however, entertains the hope and trust
that the respondent husband shall not occasion any default
43
2026:JHHC:23501-DB
or invite such situation and will scrupulously abide by the
directions herein issued for payment of permanent alimony in
favour of the appellant-wife.
106. Accordingly, the order dated 25th March 2025 and the
decree drawn on 5th April 2025 by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in
Original Suit No. 81 of 2024, stand modified to the extent
indicated hereinabove, so as to incorporate the directions of
this Court with respect to permanent alimony.
107. In light of the foregoing directions and observations
recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed of
and decreed in the terms set forth, with the modification of
the impugned judgment and decree to the extent indicated.
108. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands
disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated: 06/08/2026
Birendra/A.F.R.
Uploaded on 07.08.2026
44
