Jharkhand High Court
Avinash Kumar Age 40 Years vs Mamta Devi Wife Of Sri Avinash Kumar And ... on 1 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:21438-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 423 of 2018
-------
Avinash Kumar age 40 years, son of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Sahu, resident of Madhubala Gali, Main Road, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. and District-Gumla, at present residing at Flat No.302, Maithili Elegant Cooperative Housing Society, Plot No.18D, Sanpada, Sector 14, Navi Mumbai-400705.
... ... Applicant/Appellant Versus Mamta Devi wife of Sri Avinash Kumar and daughter of Shri Tapeshwar Sahu, resident of Qr. No.2240, Sector 8B, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. and District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... ... Opposite Party/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate Md. Azam, Advocate
----------------------------
CAV on 25/06/2025 Pronounced on 01/08/2025
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the Judgment dated 20.08.2018 (decree sealed & signed on 29.08.2018) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in TMS No.67 of 2014 (Original Suit No.67 of 2014), whereby and whereunder, the issue of dissolution of marriage, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case, which required to be enumerated, needs to be referred as under:
3. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "appellant") and the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "respondent) are legally married husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 20.06.2009 in Sector-8, Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro according to Hindu customs. Thereafter, the respondent went to her in- 1 F.A. No. 423 of 2018
2025:JHHC:21438-DB laws' house in Gumla with her husband where both of them started living their married life as husband and wife. They have a son from their married life who lives with his mother/defendant, respondent herein.
4. It has further been stated that while returning to Gumla after marriage, the respondent neglected the appellant and kept distance from him and she fell asleep while crying. The appellant felt that she was doing so in a fit of emotion, due to which, the appellant did not express his desire for sexual intercourse, but the next day the respondent had sexual intercourse reluctantly. Thereafter, their honeymoon program was made for Shimla and Manali on 23.06.2009. Meanwhile, the respondent kept insisting to send her to Hazaribagh Saint Columba College for her M. Com studies, on which, the plaintiff and his parents, keeping in mind her studies, assured that after returning from the honeymoon, the plaintiff would go to his job and the defendant/respondent would go for her studies.
5. It has further been stated that during the honeymoon, the behavior of the defendant/respondent herein was strange, sometimes she would become very happy and sometimes very sad. They returned on 02.07.2009. During this time, the defendant/respondent boarded a train in Bokaro and the appellant went to Gumla, from where, he went to his workplace in Rajasthan. When the plaintiff/appellant tried to talk to his wife/defendant/respondent on mobile, her mobile would remain busy till midnight. On asking, she would say that she was talking to her friend. Through SMS, the defendant/respondent informed the plaintiff that she was pregnant. During this time, when the respondent's health deteriorated, she was admitted to the hospital for treatment, but on 25.09.2009, the 2 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB plaintiff/appellant was informed that his wife had a miscarriage. When the plaintiff went to the hospital, a call with the name Maya-2 written on it came on the defendant's mobile. On picking up the call, there was a man's voice and the phone was switched off. On asking, the appellant's father- in-law said that the call was from Mukesh Singh, who is the respondent's friend. On 02.10.2009, the plaintiff went to his workplace in Jodhpur with his wife/defendant/respondent, but there the respondent's behavior towards the plaintiff/appellant herein was not good and after two days, she expressed her desire to divorce the appellant/plaintiff and said that Mukesh Singh is more beautiful than the appellant/plaintiff. These statements of the respondent caused a lot of mental agony to the appellant/plaintiff. When the appellant/plaintiff asked her why she married him, she told him that Mukesh Singh belonged to another caste which her parents did not accept. Due to this behaviour of the wife, the plaintiff/appellant fell ill. When the plaintiff/appellant herein returned from the bank where he was working, his wife would keep the room closed, due to which, the plaintiff/appellant had to cook food. In December 2009, at night, his wife suddenly said that she had to go to her maternal home in Bokaro. On not getting any berth suddenly, the plaintiff/appellant sent his wife with his father in the general bogie who took his wife to Gumla.
6. It has been stated that his wife did not behave well with his parents in Gumla also and would talk on mobile for hours while being locked in the room. While returning from Tirupati, the respondent called her father to Bokaro station without the consent of the plaintiff's family and went to her 3 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB maternal home with him on 2nd February, 2010. On 10th August, the respondent/wife gave birth to a son and when the plaintiff's parents went to Bokaro for the Chatthi ceremony, she met them reluctantly after an hour. On 16.10.2010, When Mukesh Singh's father fell from the stairs and got injured and was admitted to the ICU in Ranchi Apollo, the defendant's/wife's parents came to meet him there, but despite the persuasion of the plaintiff's family, the defendant/respondent insisted on taking divorce from the plaintiff/appellant.
7. It has further been stated that in the first week of February 2011, his wife/defendant called the plaintiff and told him that Mukesh Singh is married and now she wants to spend her married life with the appellant/plaintiff, so she wants to go to Jodhpur to meet the appellant/plaintiff. The plaintiff also says that his father-in-law, after drinking alcohol, has threatened to kill his parents many times and threatens to send the appellant/plaintiff and all his family members to jail. In this way, the appellant/plaintiff has been neglected by the wife/defendant since 02.02.2010 when she got down at Bokaro Station. The appellant/plaintiff was treated cruelly by the respondent/defendant and her family members and the respondent/defendant had a previous love affair with Mukesh Singh. In such a situation, it is not possible for the appellant/plaintiff to lead a normal married life with the respondent/defendant. The respondent/defendant has caused a lot of mental agony to the appellant.
8. It has further been stated that the cause of action started on the day when both the parties got married on 20.06.2009 and even when the 4 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB respondent was subjected to cruelty and harassment in Gumla and Jodhpur and even when she expressed her desire to divorce the appellant, of which the appellant has made a CD of the mobile conversation. The plaintiff and the defendant live in District Bokaro which comes under the jurisdiction of this court.
9. The learned Family Judge has called upon the respondent-wife. The wife has filed written statement. It has been stated in the written statement by the respondent wife that suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein is not maintainable from the point of view of law and facts, it has been filed merely to harass the respondent.
10. It has further been stated that about Rs. 30 lakhs have been spent on the marriage, which is true, but all the allegations made in the other paragraphs are false and baseless. Her father sent Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 6 lakhs through draft no. 782348 dated 23.05.2009, two lakh rupees were paid by draft no.782146 and on 14.05.2009 four lakh rupees were paid in the account number 4913101000040986 of Rameshwar Sahu in SBI, Gumla. Besides this household articles, gold and silver jewellery etc. were given. When the respondent went to her in-law's house, they started harassing her mentally by taunting her and after living well for a few days, the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law started demanding ten lakh rupees as dowry for a Honda City car and when the respondent refused, all of them started torturing her mentally and physically, started beating her. In the meanwhile, the defendant/respondent got pregnant, on 18.09.2009, all of them started beating her, she was kicked hard in her stomach due to which her health deteriorated and on informing her father, the defendant's 5 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB father took her to Bokaro on 22.09.2009 where she was admitted to BGH for treatment and she had a miscarriage. Even after informing about this, no one from the plaintiff's family came to see the defendant. On this, the defendant's father organized a social panchayat in Gumla, in which, the appellant/plaintiff's family accepted their mistake and assured to take good care of the defendant and sent her off and took her to Gumla on 26.09.2009. From there, he took her to the plaintiff's workplace Jodhpur, where the plaintiff is a bank officer. After a few days, the plaintiff's family reached there too and started beating the defendant, instigating the plaintiff to beat her. On 21.12.2009, the defendant was brought back to Gumla and after beating her, they forcibly gave her sleeping pills mixed in her food due to which the defendant remained unconscious for two days. When the defendant informed her father about this, her father came and took her away from Gumla to Bokaro on 2.02.2010. Since then, she is living in her maternal home and her in-laws did not inquire about her. On 10.08.2010, the defendant gave birth to a son but even after getting the news of this, the plaintiff's family did not inquire about her. When the defendant's father withdrew one lakh rupees from his PF account, the plaintiff's family sent her away and took her to Gumla on 25.08.2011. The plaintiff left his wife and newborn child in Gumla and went to his workplace where the defendant's in-laws kept harassing her demanding the remaining 9 lakh rupees. On 18.12.2011, the plaintiff's family members forcibly brought the defendant and her son in a car to her father's house in Bokaro and left them there and threatened that they would not keep the defendant until they received the remaining 9 lakh rupees to buy a Honda City car.
6 F.A. No. 423 of 2018
2025:JHHC:21438-DB
11. It has further been stated that on 02.10.2012, the appellant's family members came to the defendant's house and demanded the remaining 9 lakh rupees. When the defendant refused to fulfill their demands, they surrounded her and started pushing and beating her. The defendant complained about the above incident at the police station, but the police station did not take up the case, saying that it was a family matter. The defendant filed a complaint case no.978/12 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, which is pending in the court of Mrs. Manju Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. Thereafter, the suit was decided and evidence of both the parties was recorded. Thereafter, arguments of the plaintiff and the defendant were heard and the case was fixed for decision.
12. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant/petitioner had a motion by filing a petition.
13. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, the learned Family Judge has framed altogether six issues which are as follows:
(i) Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff has any valid cause of action?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has been deserted by the defendant for a continuous period of more than two years?
(iv) Has the plaintiff been subjected to cruel and mental harassment by the defendant?7 F.A. No. 423 of 2018
2025:JHHC:21438-DB
(v) Whether the plaintiff has subjected the respondent to cruelty by torturing her physically and mentally for demanding a Honda City Car?
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for?
14. The appellant/plaintiff has examined a total of 02 witnesses including himself in support of his case, out of which, plaintiff witness no. 01 Rameshwar Prasad Sahu is the plaintiff's father and witness no. 02 Avinash Kumar is the plaintiff himself. No documentary evidence has been presented by the plaintiff in support of his case.
15. On the other hand, the respondent has also examined two witnesses including herself in support of her written statements, out of which, defendant witness no. 1, namely, Tapeshwar Gupta who is the father of the defendant and defendant witness no. 2-Mamta Kumari is the defendant herself.
16. The evidences have been made on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter, the judgment has been passed against the plaintiff and held that he is not entitled to get divorce, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
17. Although the appeal is against the denial of decree of divorce but it appears from the order dated 28.08.2024 that the parties were ready for settlement as they were not ready to live together and the appellant was ready for payment of Rs. 30,00000/ which would be evident from order dated 28.08.2024, for ready reference same is being quoted as under: 8 F.A. No. 423 of 2018
2025:JHHC:21438-DB "26/ 28.08.2024 Pursuant to the order dated 24.07.2024, parties are physically present along with their respective counsel in the Chamber.
After mediation proceeding, the parties have mutually agreed for full and final settlement. An offer has been made by respondent- husband for payment of Rs.25,00,000/- for the wife and Rs.5,00,000/- exclusively for the child born out of the wedlock of the parties. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be deposited in a fixed term account, in the name of the child, who can utilize it after attaining his majority.
Put up this case on 15.10.2024.
The parties shall come up with Joint Compromise agreement with respect to terms and conditions of payment etc. It is made clear that the said compromise agreement shall be treated as full and final settlement and parties shall withdraw their cases, if any, against either side."
18. But it is evident from order dated 18.03.2025 that subsequent to order dated 28.08.2024, certain further conditions have been incorporated by the respondent in joint settlement which in fact would reveal that though the respondent had agreed to settle the issue, accepting Rs. 30 Lakhs towards full and final settlement but the further demands have jeopardized the chance of settlement and accordingly this Court had decided to hear the present appeal on merit. For ready reference the order dated 18.03.2025 is being quoted as under:
"Order No. 31 Dated 18th March, 2025 Although on 28.08.2024 on the efforts made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the parties had agreed to mutually settle the dispute and an offer was made by the appellant/husband to extend an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs to the respondent and Rs. 5 Lakhs to their son, but several orders have been passed subsequent to the order dated 28.08.2024 and the mater got adjourned on account of the parties having not filed the terms and conditions of the settlement agreed upon between them.
Today Ms. Chandana Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a demand draft of Rs. 30 Lakhs is in her possession which is to be handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent.
9 F.A. No. 423 of 2018
2025:JHHC:21438-DB It appears that initially the joint compromise petition was prepared by the learned counsel for the appellant but subsequent thereto certain further conditions have been incorporated by the respondent which in fact would reveal that though the respondent had agreed to settle the issue, accepting Rs. 30 Lakhs towards full and final settlement but the further demands have jeopardized the chance of settlement.
In such circumstances, therefore, we intend to hear this appeal on merits.
Let this case be listed on 21.04.2025 under the heading 'For Hearing'.
19. Further, vide order dated 21.04.2025 it is evident that the parties again shown their willingness to settled the issue, but at the same time respondent had shown her concern to the future of the male child who is student of class-X. In response to the said concern the appellant had submitted that appellant-husband is ready to take all care of nourishment of his son including his educational expenditure and all necessary care which is required by the father towards the son. For ready reference the order dated 21.04.2025 is being quoted as under:
"32/Dated: 21st April, 2025
1. learned counsel appearing for the appellant has again made a prayer that the husband is ready for settlement.
2. Mr. Afaque Rashidi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has submitted that the issue of settlement although has only taken care of about the wife having no reference of the care which is required for the future of the male child who is student of Class-X.
3. Upon this, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant-husband is ready to take all care 10 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB of nourishment of his son including his educational expenditure and all necessary care which is required by the father towards the son.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that to that effect a specific affidavit shall be filed. Therefore, she has prayed for two weeks' time.
5. Learned counsel for both the parties have agreed that their respective litigants/clients will be in the court on the next date of hearing.
6. As jointly prayed for, list this case on 11.06.2025."
20. Further, vide order dated 11.06.2025, it is evident that learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that she is ready to argue the matter on merit. Taking into consideration the record of the case, the Court has observed that "this Court, upon hearing the same as also taking into consideration the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, where consideration of decree of divorce has been referred on payment of Rs.30 lakhs, is of the view that what is being said by the respondent that the amount of Rs.30 lakhs is a meagre amount and cannot be said to be sufficient for her maintenance and for upbringing of the son, cannot be disagreed to."
21. It is further evident from the said order that this Court while taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10209 of 2024 had further directed the appellant to furnish the details of the income (monthly/annually) along with perks and other properties for the purpose of consideration of the permanent alimony as per the provision provided under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the sustenance of the wife and the son and 11 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB accordingly, matter was fixed for 25.06.2025. for ready reference the order dated 11.06.2025 is being quoted as under:
"Order No. 33/Dated 11th June, 2025
1. We have perused the earlier orders passed by the Coordinate Bench and by us.
2. It appears from the order passed by the Coordinate Bench that the Court has assessed an amount of Rs.30 lakhs bifurcating it in two parts, i.e., Rs.25 lakhs for the alimony of the wife and Rs.5 lakhs for the son aged about 15 years.
3. The respondent-wife is present in Court today.
4. She has submitted that the said amount of Rs.30 lakhs is such a meagre amount which cannot be said to be sufficient for her maintenance and upbringing of the minor son who is studying in Class-IX.
5. It has been informed that the appellant-husband is working in State Bank of India as Scale-IV/V Officer and now posted in some branch in Mumbai.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that she is ready to argue the matter on merit.
7. She has also argued on the issue of cruelty said to be established.
8. This Court, upon hearing the same as also taking into consideration the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench where consideration of decree of divorce has been referred on payment of Rs.30 lakhs, is of the view that what is being said by the respondent that the amount of Rs.30 lakhs is a meagre amount and cannot be said to be sufficient for her maintenance and for upbringing of the son, cannot be disagreed to.
9. We have seen the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 29.05.2025 in Civil Appeal No.10209 of 2024 wherein the 12 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB Hon'ble Apex Court, has revised the quantum of permanent alimony taking into consideration the price index and inflation rate after considerable lapse of time.
10. This Court, considering the aforesaid issue, is of the view that the details of the income (monthly/annually) along with perks and other properties is required to be filed by the appellant for the purpose of consideration of the permanent alimony as per the provision provided under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the sustenance of the wife and the son.
11. Such order is being passed because of the reason that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has 3 submitted that she is ready to argue the matter on merit since there is no chance of reunion.
12. Let such affidavit be filed on or before the next date of hearing.
13. A copy of the affidavit, which will be filed, shall be served upon the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife well in advance. 14. List this matter on 25.06.2025."
22. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that initially on the instance of the parties, endeavour has been taken by this Court on the principle that the efforts for reunion are to be taken first but if the efforts of reunion are not found to be possible, then the other possibility of settlement is to be considered.
23. Thus, it appears from the order passed by the Coordinate Bench that the parties were initially ready for the settlement and accordingly Court has assessed an amount of Rs.30 lakhs bifurcating it in two parts, i.e., Rs.25 lakhs for the alimony of the wife and Rs.5 lakhs for the son aged about 15 years. But later on, respondent-wife had submitted that the 13 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB said amount of Rs.30 lakhs is such a meagre amount which cannot be said to be sufficient for her maintenance and upbringing of the minor son who is studying in Class-IX.
24. Since, the proposed settlement once arrived between the parties has not culminated into full and final settlement, therefore, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that she is ready to argue the matter on merit.
25. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid fact and taking into consideration that reunion is not possible and further taking into consideration that earlier parties were ready for settlement on amount of Rs.30 lakhs bifurcating it in two parts, i.e., Rs.25 lakhs for the alimony of the wife and Rs.5 lakhs for the son aged about 15 years , has passed order on 11.06.2025 directing the learned counsel for the appellant-husband to file affidavit giving details of the salary/perks of the appellant-husband along with the salary-slip as also the documents pertaining to his immovable property.
26. Accordingly, the instant appeal was posted for 25.06.2025 and in compliance of order dated 11.06.2025 the appellant/husband has filed affidavit by giving details of his salary/perks along with the salary-slip as also the documents pertaining to his immovable property. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
27. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the factual aspect which was available before the learned Family Judge supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant has not properly been 14 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
28. It has been submitted that while returning to Gumla after marriage, the respondent neglected the appellant and kept distance from him.
29. It has further been submitted that the appellant husband was always tried to talk to his wife on mobile but her mobile remained busy till midnight.
30. It has also been contended that his wife did not behave well with his parents in Gumla and when the plaintiff's parents went to Bokaro for Chatthi ceremony of his son, she met them reluctantly after an hour.
31. It has further been submitted that the issue of cruelty and desertion has not been taken into consideration in right perspective by the learned Family Court, hence, the order impugned has been passed.
32. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
33. Per contra, Mr. Afaque Rashidi, learned counsel for the respondent- wife, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge has considered the issue of cruelty and desertion and having come to the conclusion that no evidence has been adduced to establish the issue either of cruelty or desertion, has dismissed the petition. 15 F.A. No. 423 of 2018
2025:JHHC:21438-DB
34. It has been contended that when the respondent went to her in-law's house, they started harassing her mentally by taunting her.
35. It has also been submitted that when the respondent wife got pregnant, all of them started beating her, due to which, her health was deteriorated and on informing her father, he took her to Bokaro where she was admitted to BGH for treatment and she had a miscarriage.
36. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty and desertion has not been found to be established, hence, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error.
Analysis:
37. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment.
38. It appears from the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that the parties have agreed for settlement, the said order is being referred herein above.
39. When the matter was listed before this Court, then the respondent wife has submitted that 30 lakhs rupees is such a meagre amount, from which, it is not possible to survive along with son, who is the student of Class-IX. The submission has been made that the age of respondent-wife is only 42 years.
16 F.A. No. 423 of 2018
2025:JHHC:21438-DB
40. This Court, in view of the aforesaid, has directed the appellant to file affidavit and accordingly, the affidavit has been filed.
41. This Court, by taking into consideration the earlier proposed settlement which has been arrived at between the parties and based upon the same, payment of permanent alimony was fixed in terms of order, as quoted and referred hereinabove, is now adverting into merit of the case.
42. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "appellant") and the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "respondent) are legally married husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 20.06.2009. It has alleged by the appellant that during the honeymoon, the behavior of the defendant/respondent herein was strange, sometimes she would become very happy and sometimes very sad. They returned on 02.07.2009. On 02.10.2009, the plaintiff went to his workplace in Jodhpur with his wife/defendant/respondent, but there the respondent's behavior towards the plaintiff/appellant herein was not good and after two days, she expressed her desire to divorce the appellant/plaintiff and said that Mukesh Singh is more beautiful than the appellant/plaintiff. These statements of the respondent caused a lot of mental agony to the appellant/plaintiff. Due to this behaviour of the wife, the plaintiff/appellant fell ill.
43. On 10th August 2010, the respondent/wife gave birth to a son and when the plaintiff's parents went to Bokaro for the Chatthi ceremony, she met them reluctantly after an hour. On 16.10.2010, When Mukesh Singh's father fell from the stairs and got injured and was admitted to the ICU in Ranchi Apollo, the defendant's/wife's parents came to meet him there, but 17 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB despite the persuasion of the plaintiff's family, the defendant/respondent insisted on taking divorce from the plaintiff/appellant. It has been stated that the appellant/plaintiff was treated cruelly by the respondent/defendant and her family members and the respondent/defendant had a previous love affair with Mukesh Singh. In such a situation, it is not possible for the appellant/plaintiff to lead a normal married life with the respondent/defendant.
44. The respondent wife has filed written statement and mentioned that about Rs. 30 lakhs have been spent on the marriage. Besides, this household articles, gold and silver jewellery etc. were given. When the respondent went to her in-law's house, they started harassing her mentally by taunting her and after living well for a few days, the husband, mother- in-law and sister-in-law started demanding ten lakh rupees as dowry for a Honda City car and when the respondent refused, all of them started torturing her mentally and physically, started beating her. In the meanwhile, the defendant/respondent got pregnant, on 18.09.2009, all of them started beating her, she was kicked hard in her stomach due to which her health deteriorated and on informing her father, the defendant's father took her to Bokaro on 22.09.2009 where she was admitted to BGH for treatment and she had a miscarriage. On this, the defendant's father organized a social panchayat in Gumla, in which, the appellant/plaintiff's family accepted their mistake and thereafter plaintiff/appellant took her to his workplace Jodhpur, where the plaintiff is a bank officer. After a few days, the plaintiff's family reached there too and started beating the defendant, instigating the plaintiff to beat her. On 21.12.2009, the 18 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB defendant was brought back to Gumla and when the defendant informed her father about this, her father came and took her away from Gumla to Bokaro on 2.02.2010. Since then, she is living in her maternal home and her in-laws did not inquire about her. On 10.08.2010, the defendant gave birth to a son but even after getting the news of this, the plaintiff's family did not inquire about her. When the defendant's father withdrew one lakh rupees from his PF account, the plaintiff's family sent her away and took her to Gumla on 25.08.2011. On 18.12.2011, the plaintiff's family members forcibly brought the defendant and her son in a car to her father's house in Bokaro and left them there and threatened that they would not keep the defendant until they received the remaining 9 lakh rupees to buy a Honda City car. The defendant filed a complaint case no.978/12 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.
45. Thereafter, the suit was decided and evidence of both the parties was recorded. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, the learned Family Judge has framed the issues. The appellant/plaintiff has examined a total of 02 witnesses including himself in support of his case, out of which, plaintiff witness no. 01 Rameshwar Prasad Sahu is the plaintiff's father and witness no. 02 Avinash Kumar is the plaintiff himself. No documentary evidence has been presented by the plaintiff in support of his case.
46. On the other hand, the respondent has also examined two witnesses including herself in support of her written statements, out of which, defendant witness no. 1, namely, Tapeshwar Gupta who is the father of 19 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB the defendant and defendant witness no. 2-Mamta Kumari is the defendant herself.
47. The evidences have been made on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter, the judgment has been passed against the plaintiff and held that he (appellant herein) is not entitled to get divorce.
48. The decree of divorce has been refused to be granted by the learned Family Court, but this Court, taking into consideration the fact that there is no possibility of reconciliation on the issue of reunion, hence, has thought it proper to venture into the merit of the case.
49. Admittedly, vide order dated 28.08.2024 it is apparent that the contesting parties were ready for settlement and even permanent alimony was fixed as Rs.30 lakhs bifurcating it in two parts, i.e., Rs.25 lakhs for the alimony of the wife and Rs.5 lakhs for the son aged about 15 years, but due to some reservation of respondent wife related to amount of alimony on account of future expanses of son, the said settlement was not culminated into full and final shape. Even from the order dated 21.04.2025, which has been quoted and referred hereinabove, it is evident that concern of the respondent about future expenses of her son was stated to be taken care of by the appellant husband as he was ready to take all care of nourishment of his son including his educational expenditure and all necessary care.
50. Thus, from the aforesaid fact, it is evident that parties were ready to move out from their current position as husband and wife but the matter was stuck only on the ground of amount of permanent alimony. 20 F.A. No. 423 of 2018
2025:JHHC:21438-DB
51. In the aforesaid circumstances, the considered view of this Court is that now the marital relation between the parties has become "dead wood marriage" and marital relation has become lifeless and without emotional or practical value. It is settled proposition of law that when a marriage is deemed a dead wood situation, Courts may consider it a valid reason to grant a divorce, recognizing that forcing a couple to remain in such a relationship only prolongs their suffering and no purpose will be served in sailing the dead wood.
52. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy, (2005) 7 SCC 353, while taking into consideration the long period of separation of husband and wife has observed, which reads as under:
"28. The facts and circumstances in the above three cases disclose that reunion is impossible. The case on hand is one such. It is not in dispute that the appellant and the respondent are living away for the last 14 years. It is also true that a good part of the lives of both the parties has been consumed in this litigation. As observed by this Court, the end is not in sight. The assertion of the wife through her learned counsel at the time of hearing appears to be impractical. It is also a matter of record that dislike for each other was burning hot.
29. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to say the following:
Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirming the order of the Family Court granting decree for divorce. The Family Court has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs 50,000 towards permanent alimony to the respondent and pursuant to such direction the appellant had deposited the amount by way of bank draft. Considering the status of parties and the economic condition of the appellant who is facing criminal prosecution and out of job and 21 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB also considering the status of the wife who is employed, we feel that a further sum of Rs 1 lakh by way of permanent alimony would meet the ends of justice. This shall be paid by the appellant within 3 months from today by an account payee demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent Arundhati Tripathy and the dissolution shall come into effect when the demand draft is drawn and furnished to the respondent."
53. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sujata Uday Patil v. Uday Madhukar Patil, 2007 (3) PLR 521 has observed as under:
"Matrimonial disputes have to be decided by courts in a pragmatic manner keeping in view the ground realities. For this purpose a host of factors have to be taken into consideration and the most important being whether the marriage can be saved and the husband and wife can live together happily and maintain a proper atmosphere at home for the upbringing of their offsprings. Thus the court has to decide in the fact and circumstances of each case and it is not possible to lay down any fixed standards or even guidelines."
54. It needs to refer herein that during pendency of the instant appeal, the allegations of dowry demand was made by the respondent against the appellant and against her in-laws and in this regard, a case being C.P. Case No. 978 of 2012 was instituted but in the said case, the charges were not proved against the appellant/husband and his parents and accordingly, they have been discharged from their criminal liability by the trial court. The aforesaid fact has been brought on record by the appellant by way of filing supplementary affidavit, wherein, the aforesaid judgment of acquittal has been appended as Annexure-1.
55. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein the settled position of law that it is open for anyone to file complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal of his or her grievances and lodge a first information report for an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be 22 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB treated as cruelty. But, when a person undergoes a trial, in which, he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under Section 498-A IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has been meted out on the husband. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narasimha Sastry v. Suneela Rani, (2020) 18 SCC 247. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
"13. In the present case, the prosecution is launched by the respondent against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC making serious allegations in which the appellant had to undergo trial which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. In the prosecution under Section 498-A IPC not only acquittal has been recorded but observations have been made that allegations of serious nature are levelled against each other. The case set up by the appellant seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been established. With regard to proceeding initiated by the respondent under Section 498-A IPC, the High Court [Narsimha Sastry v. Suneela Rani, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 714] made the following observation in para 15 : (Rani Narsimha Sastry case [Narsimha Sastry v. Suneela Rani, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 714] , SCC OnLine Hyd) "15. ... Merely because the respondent has sought for maintenance or has filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, they cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding that such a recourse adopted by the respondent amounts to cruelty."
The above observation of the High Court cannot be approved. It is true that it is open for anyone to file complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal of his or her grievances and lodge a first information report for an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But, when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under Section 498-A IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has been meted out on the husband. As per the pleadings before us, after parties having been married on 14-8-2005, they lived together only 18 months and, thereafter, they are separately living for more than a decade now. 23 F.A. No. 423 of 2018
2025:JHHC:21438-DB
14. In view of the forgoing discussion, we conclude that the appellant has made a ground for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground as mentioned in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.?"
56. Herein, the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2009 but both are living separately since more than decade. Today, the position is that the parties have been living separately for almost more than decade, which means that the marriage between the parties has been rendered a complete dead wood, therefore, it is considered view of this Court that no useful purpose will be served by keeping such a marriage alive on paper, which would only aggravate the agony of the parties.
57.We have perused the earlier orders passed by this Court and it is evident therefrom that the Court made efforts to bring about a reunion between the parties but in spite of good endeavour, a reunion of the parties could not be affected. However, it is evident from record that both the parties were ready for full and final settlement, which would be evident from order dated 28.08.2024 passed by this Court but it is not culminated into finality. Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid fact that party is willing to choose their path.
58.The factual matrix of the case as narrated above, which would indicate that the appellant and the respondent are living separately for more than decade and their son is aged about 15 years old. There is absolutely no marital bondage between the parties. The marriage has become a fiction with the long period of continuous separation. Regardless of the subsistence of the marriage, the couple was unable to patch up their differences. The marriage is shattered and has become a deadwood. The 24 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB allegations and counter-allegations leveled against each other establish that there is no further chance of a rapprochement.
59. Since both the parties are not interested to continue their conjugal life and the marriage between the parties has been rendered a complete deadwood and reconciliation is not possible, accepting the pragmatic reality of life and taking a decision which would ultimately be conducive in the interest of both the parties, we, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court and direct that in the extra-ordinary facts and circumstances of the case, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent stands dissolved according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the divorce shall take effect from today.
Issue of permanent alimony
60. 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 25 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB 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 6* * * 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]."
61. 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 26 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB of a wife of husband by passing an appropriate order at the appropriate stage either under Section 24 or 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The basic behind is to sustain the live of husband or wife, if having no sufficient source of income.
62. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident 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 decide whether or not to grant permanent alimony or maintenance. 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. Thus, a power is conferred on the Matrimonial Court to grant permanent alimony and 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. Reference in this regard kay be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 27 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200.
63. We may note here that an amendment has been brought to Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the Act No. 68 of 1976 with effect from 27th May 1996. Earlier, it was provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 that if the Court was satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made has not remained chaste, it shall rescind the order. The words "it shall rescind the order" appearing in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 were replaced by the said amendment by the words "it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order .....". The legislature in its wisdom by the said amendment has provided that after the facts stated in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act are established, the Court may vary, modify or rescind any such order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, after 1976, there is a discretion conferred on the Court by Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of declining to rescind, vary or modify the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 thereof, even if on an Application made by the husband, it is established that the wife has not remained chaste after the decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 25.
64. 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 28 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB the case, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
"12. As per Section 25, while considering the claim for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent's own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. It is further seen that the court considering such claim has to consider all the above relevant materials and determine the amount which is to be just for living standard. No fixed formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has to be in the nature of things which depend on various facts and circumstances of each case. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute. The courts also have to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. These are all the broad principles courts have to be kept (sic keep) in mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony."
65. 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 29 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB 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."
66. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (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 during the subsistence of the marriage, for ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are 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 30 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB 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 law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications.
[Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
67. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of law this Court, is now adverting to consider the issue of alimony which is to be paid by the appellant/ husband in favour of the respondent wife.
68. The admitted fact is that the appellant husband is working as Chief Manager in the State Bank of India. He has placed on record the salary 31 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB slip by way of affidavit filed on 25.06.2025, for ready reference, the details of salary slip is being quoted as under:-
32 F.A. No. 423 of 2018
2025:JHHC:21438-DB
69. It is thus evident that the appellant husband is getting total salary of Rs.2,02,938 per month, out of which Rs.13042/- is being deducted in the GPF account of the appellant husband, and Rs. 25,598 has been deducted under income tax head and some amount has also been deducted under different heads, therefore, the income which has been accrued to the appellant husband which is being come in hand, Rs. 122, 088.
70. However, the amount of GPF will also be said to be his own income, hence, the total monthly income amount to Rs.135000/- per month. Further, it is evident from salary slip that appellant has taken car loan, festival advance loan and some other credit membership deduction and therefore, these all things are amount to luxury and it may be presumed as future investment. Thus, it is the considered view of this Court that except deduction under head of income tax and deduction under head of insurance, rest amount will be treated as salary of the appellant, therefore, the lumpsum income of the appellant will be approximately Rs.1,75000/-.
71. The case of the respondent wife is that she is not doing anything and as such, there is no source of income. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed on behalf of the appellant husband.
72. There is no question of disputing the same also, it is the version made by the appellant husband for settlement by making payment of Rs.30 lakhs as has been recorded in the order dated 28.08.2024 which itself suggests that the appellant husband has admitted the fact that the respondent wife is not working and having no source of income. 33 F.A. No. 423 of 2018
2025:JHHC:21438-DB
73. This Court is now proceeding to assess as to what should be the amount of alimony both for the respondent wife and the son.
74. This Court before answering the said issue, needs to refer herein the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan [2025 SCC OnLine SC1259] wherein, the amount of alimony has been enhanced, subject to increase of alimony on every two years.
75. This Court has considered the factual aspect of the said case and on perusal of the fact, referred therein, it is evident that the appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on 18.06.1997. A son was born to them on 05.08.1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the appellant-wife. Subsequently, the appellant-wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 in the same suit under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son. The Trial Court, by order dated 14.01.2010, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant- wife and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The appellant-wife then instituted Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Trial Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that the 34 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB 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; allow the appellant-wife and their son to continue residing in the said flat; and continue to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, subject to a 5% increase every three years. Additionally, the High Court directed payment of educational expenses for the son's university education and Rs. 5,000/- per month for private tuition.
76. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the appellant-wife has approached the Hon'ble Apex Court.
77. 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 35 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB effect from 01.11.2023. The respondent-husband subsequently entered appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim order.
78. The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month, which the High Court made final, was originally awarded as interim maintenance. She submits that the respondent-husband has a monthly income of approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- and the quantum of alimony awarded is not commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the parties during the marriage.
79. In response, the respondent-husband submits that his current net monthly income as 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.
80. 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 36 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB 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.
81. Therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. The said amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, the Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed its view that the Court is not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. It has been clarified that that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.
82. 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 paragraphs of the said order are 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 37 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB 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."
83. This Court, applying the aforesaid observation and direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in the facts of the present case, is of the view that herein the monthly income of the respondent-husband has been assessed by this Court is Rs. 1,75,000/- [after deductions of Tax and Income Tax etc.].
84. Furthermore, this Court has also took note of the fact that the respondent-husband is a salaried person having monthly salary, as such, this Court is of the view that the permanent alimony is required to be ordered on month-to-month basis, as per law laid down in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan (supra).
85. Hence, this Court, thought it proper that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Fifty Thousand) per month would be just, fair and reasonable, for sustenance of the respondent-wife, till her natural life, who has no other source of income.
86. Further, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) per month would be proper to ensure financial stability of the son, for his livelihood, and 38 F.A. No. 423 of 2018 2025:JHHC:21438-DB study. However, it is made clear that the said alimony is payable to the son, till the son attain the age of majority and after majority, giving monetary aid to the said son is being left open upon the father on account of his love and affection towards his son.
87. Both the permanent alimony awarded to the respondent-wife and son would be subject to enhancement of 5% on every two years, taking into consideration the inflation etc.
88. The amount, as has been directed to be paid, shall be paid by the appellant-husband in the bank account of the respondent--wife already available with him on or before 10th of every month, starting regularly from August, 2025.
89. This Court grants liberty to the respondent-wife that if the amount would not be paid by 10th of each month, then the respondent-wife will be at liberty to communicate such discontinuation of alimony to the employer along with copy of this order for disbursement of the said amount directly in her bank account.
90. However, this Court hope and trust that the appellant-husband will not invite such situation and will abide by the direction so passed by this Court for permanent alimony in favour of respondent-wife and her son, and also keeping the fact into consideration that appellant has shown his keen interest in taking care of future prospects of his son.
91. Considering the welfare of the child, this Court in addition to the aforesaid liberty also reserves liberty to the respondent/wife that in case of non-compliance of the aforesaid order, she can file appropriate application before the competent court.
39 F.A. No. 423 of 2018
2025:JHHC:21438-DB
92. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the instant appeal stands allowed subject to payment of the permanent alimony as directed by this Court hereinabove. Decree accordingly.
93. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree (Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Rohit/A.F.R. 40 F.A. No. 423 of 2018