Gauhati High Court
Mitrabhanu Das vs Binita Das on 29 October, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010014752025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Mat.App./10/2025
MITRABHANU DAS
S/O. LATE DR. JOGA NANDA DAS,
RESIDENT OF SIX MILE MUKUNDA PATH, P/O. KHANAPARA, P/S. DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-781022, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
BINITA DAS
D/O LATE BINOY SHANKAR NATH,
RESIDENT OF JURIPAR PATH, HOUSE NO. 3, BYE LANE NO. 3, PANJABARI,
GUWAHATI 781037, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
:BEFORE::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN Moni kalita
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Date of Hearing : 22.09.2025
Date of Judgment: 29.10.2025
Heard Ms. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant-husband. Also heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel representing the
respondent-wife.
2. This application has been filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Page No.# 2/10 1955, read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assailing the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.12.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 33/2019 as well as in F.C. (Crl) Case No. 286/2017.
3. The brief facts of the case can be summarised as follows: -
(i) The appellant and the respondent got married on 01.03.1993 and out of their wedlock, two children were born. The elder one is a boy who is about 28 years old and the younger one is a girl child who is about 23 years. After few years of their marriage, due to various differences between the appellant and the respondent, the appellant filed a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of Judicial Separation, which was registered as F.C. (Civil) Case No. 58/2012, before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup, Guwahati. The aforesaid case for Judicial Separation was disposed of by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup, vide it's Judgment & Decree dated 21.04.2014, granting the decree for Judicial Separation in favour of the appellant.
(ii) Thereafter, the appellant filed a case under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage by granting a decree of divorce before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup and the same was registered as F.C. (Civil) Case No. 323/2015. The case was disposed of by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup, vide it's Judgment & Order dated 01.10.2019, whereby, the learned Principal Judge was pleased to dissolve the marriage of the appellant and the respondent by way of a decree of divorce.
Page No.# 3/10
(iii) The respondent filed a case being F.C. (Crl) Case No. 286/2017, against the appellant, praying for maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid case, after hearing both the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup, was pleased to allow ad- interim maintenance of Rs. 6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred) per month, which was subsequently, enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per month to the respondent.
(iv) The respondent filed a permanent alimony and maintenance case against the appellant, under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was registered as Misc (J) No. 33/2019 in connection with F.C. (Civil) Case No. 323/2015. After completion of the pleadings of both the aforesaid matters i.e., Misc (J) No. 33/2019 and F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 286/2017, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup (M), after hearing both the parties, was pleased to pass the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.12.2024, allowing the petitions of the respondent by granting an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) as permanent alimony.
4. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment & Order dated 23.12.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 33/2019 as well as in F.C. (Crl) Case No. 286/2017, the appellant has filed the instant appeal, assailing the aforesaid Judgment & Order dated 23.12.2024.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Principal Judge had erroneously come to the finding that the permanent alimony and maintenance of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only), would not be in excessive. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Page No.# 4/10 Principal Judge failed to appreciate and properly consider the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the appellant in F.C. (Crl) Case No. 286/2017, wherein, the appellant has clearly mentioned that he had been paying a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to his girl child towards her food, clothing, medical and educational expenses along with other general expenses as she has been pursuing her LL.B. in Delhi University staying in a rented accommodation. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Principal Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that in addition to the aforesaid, the appellant has been paying regularly to his son also, who has recently joined in his service in the month of December, 2022 and yet to be properly settled. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant has been paying an amount of Rs. 42,322/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Two Only) per month as EMI, against his House Building Loan for an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) with an additional amount of Rs. 46,104/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand One Hundred Four only) per annum as insurance of the aforesaid house loan. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was paying an EMI of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month towards his daughter's loan for mobile phone and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month against his daughter's loan for a Mac Book, which in fact, ended just before passing of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.12.2024, by the aforesaid learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup (M). The learned counsel submitted that the monthly household expenses, medical, transportation, Telephone, Internet, Cable and other basic needs of the appellant goes up to approximately Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only) per month. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant, during his service period, finding no other alternative, had to withdraw his Provident Fund (PF) of Rs. 41,90,400/-(Rupees Forty One Lakhs Ninety Page No.# 5/10 Thousand Four Hundred only) out of his eligible Rs. 80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs), as he was unable to bear the regular expenses he had to make. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant had again withdrawn an additional amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) thereby, totalling to an amount of RS. 56,90,400/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakh Ninety Thousand and Four Hundred only) withdrawn from the eligible PF amount of the appellant.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Principal Judge did not consider the aforesaid affidavit of Assets and Liabilities in proper perspective and thereby, passed an erroneous Judgment & Order. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only), which has been granted as permanent alimony to the respondent is disproportionate to the appellant's income and other assets, inasmuch as, he is due to retire on 31.01.2026 and therefore, he would be left with little money to survive with for his entire life.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his net salary was Rs. 1,19,023/- (Rupees One Lakh Nineteen Thousand and Twenty Three Only), and not Rs. 1,86,300/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand and Three Hundered Only) as has been alleged by the respondent. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant was receiving the aforesaid salary amount of Rs. 1,19,023/-, only from the month of April, 2024 and before that his net salary was about Rs. 90,000/- (Ninety Thousand Only) since April, 2023 and therefore, she submitted that the learned Principal Judge had erred in holding his average net salary as Rs. 1,86,300/-, only relying on the submissions of the respondent minus any cogent evidence.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is an admitted fact Page No.# 6/10 that the appellant had been looking after all the needs of his children till date, whereas, the respondent admittedly, has not spent any money in the upbringing of the children. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant had been paying all the expenses of the respondent's visits and stayings with the children from time to time, as the respondent did not have any proper source of income. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the appellant is agreeable to pay an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) as permanent alimony to the respondent, the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) as granted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, is totally disproportionate to the earnings and Assets of the appellant and therefore, the amount so granted as permanent alimony is bad in law as well as on facts and therefore, she prays for setting aside of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.12.2024. The learned counsel prays that the amount should be reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) from Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only).
9. The learned counsel for the appellant, while relying on the case of Smt. Shikha Vs. Avaneesh Mahodaya (Criminal Revision No. 3028 of 2019) decided on 10.09.2024 by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, submitted that the maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic and should 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 appellant-husband, nor should it be so meager that it drives the respondent-wife to penury. In view of the aforesaid ratio, the learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, the permanent alimony so granted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, is so exorbitant that the appellant Page No.# 7/10 who is about to retire on 31.01.2026, will face severe financial hardship to maintain himself as well as his daughter, who is still pursuing her LL.B. course in Delhi. The learned counsel further submitted that since the respondent is not having any regular income, the appellant is willing to take the responsibility of the marriage of their daughter as well.
10. Whereas, the learned counsel, representing the respondent submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup (M), Guwahati has passed the Judgment & Order after due consideration of the Assets & Liabilities of the appellant as well as of the respondent. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent is without having any regular source of earning and she is to live her remaining life on whatever money she gets by way of permanent alimony from her husband. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant has no where shown or made any assertion before this Court that the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) of permanent alimony is beyond his capacity. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup (M), Guwahati had assessed the income of the appellant on the basis of his net salary as well as the Assets and Liabilities, he possessed and thereafter, had passed a reasoned Judgment & Order. Therefore, there is no error or mistake committed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by passing the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.12.2024.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent by relying on the case of Vinny Parmvir Parmar Vs. Parmvir Parmar, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 112, submitted that while granting permanent alimony, the Court has to take into account the status of the wife that she was maintaining before the dissolution of the marriage. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant was a Senior Page No.# 8/10 Manager in a reputed Tea Estate Company and has been earning a decent amount and therefore, she had been living a comfortable life with all the necessary luxuries, she should be granted a permanent alimony whereby, she could live her life at the same level of luxury and comfort even after the dissolution of the marriage.
12. The learned counsel also relied on the case of Shailja and Another Vs. Khobbanna, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 199, to argue that the Court should not take into account any possible future income of the respondent and should only confine to the present earnings of the respondent. The learned counsel submitted that though the appellant has stated that the respondent might inherit certain properties of her parents, the fact is that the same is yet to happen and therefore, that aspect of the matter should not be taken into account for reducing the permanent alimony that has been granted by the learned Principal Judge, after considering all the evidences, documents and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this Court should not interfere with the Judgment & Order dated 23.12.2024.
13. We have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.
14. It is seen from the materials brought before us as well as from the arguments forwarded that there is no dispute about the Assets and Liabilities of the appellant as well as of the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the whole expenses for upbringing the children has been borne by the appellant till date and he has further responsibility of taking care of the education of their daughter and thereafter, her marriage. It is also seen that the appellant shall be retiring on 31.01.2026 from Page No.# 9/10 service and he has already withdrawn an amount totalling to Rs. 56,90,400/- from his eligible PF amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs). He also needs to pay the EMIs of the House Loan which would be over only by March, 2027.
15. We have also taken into account the aspect of the monthly salary of the appellant. It is seen from the records that the appellant was earlier serving as a Senior Manager at Borhat in Charaideo District and was getting a net salary of Rs. 81,000/- (Rupees Eighty One Thousand Only). In the month of April, 2023, he got a promotion to Superintendent Manager at Hathikuli Tea Estate under Amalgamated Plantations Pvt. Ltd., Golaghat and thereafter only, his net salary was enhanced to Rs. 1,75,888/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand and Eight Hundred Eighty Eight Only).
16. Taking into account all the aspects of the matter especially, the aspect that the appellant had already withdrawn the majority of the PF amount totaling to Rs. 56,90,400/- from his PF account and also the fact that he still has to take care of the education of this daughter who is studying in Delhi, pursuing LL.B. course which requires about Rs. 50,000/- per month as expense, we are of the view that the permanent alimony of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) so granted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. I, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, vide the aforesaid Judgment & Order dated 23.12.2024 is a bit high. We are of the considered view that the aforesaid amount of permanent alimony should be reduced to some extent, which should be reasonable for both the appellant as well as the respondent. Therefore, the permanent alimony so granted to the respondent is reduced from Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) to Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only).
17. In view of the aforesaid findings and direction, the instant appeal is disposed Page No.# 10/10 of as partly allowed. Send back the TCR.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant