Jharkhand High Court
Vandana Kumari vs Greesh Babu Mathur on 4 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 230 of 2019
Vandana Kumari, Aged about 38 years, W/o-Greesh Babu
Mathur, D/o- Bharat Singh, R/o-2/512 Mohalla Suhag
Nagar, P.O. -Firozabad, P.S. -Thana South, District -
Firozabad (Uttar Pradesh).
...Defendant/Respondent/Appellant
Versus
Greesh Babu Mathur, Aged about 42 years, S/o-Ram
Singh, Present R/o-Rly. Quarters No. 314 „c‟ First Floor in
Railway Colony at E.C.R. Barwadih, P.O. + P.S.-Barwadih,
Dist-Latehar.
Permanent R/o-Village Rakhwali, P.O. + P.S.-Fariha,
District-Firozabad (Uttar Pradesh)
...Plaintiff/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo, Advocate
Ms. Shourya Dwivedi, Advocate
Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate
Ms. Oishi Das, Advocate
-------------------
CAV/Reserved on 19.08.2025 Pronounced on 04/09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against order/judgment dated 11.05.2018 and decree dated 23.05.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, A/C Latehar in Original Suit No. 13 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the learned court has allowed the suit which has been preferred by the husband/respondent for dissolution of marriage.1
2025:JHHC:26953-DB Brief facts of the case:
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the original suit, needs to be referred herein reads, which reads as under:
3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.11.2007 according to the Hindu rituals and after performance of the marriage, the appellant-wife came to her marriage house.
4. The marriage between the parties was consummated and during consummation of marriage, parties were blessed with two daughters, the eldest born in the 2008 and the youngest born in the year 2013. It is stated that the parties lived as husband and wife till September, 2012 either in village Rakhwali, P.S. Fariha, District-Firojabad, U.P. or have resided lastly at railway quarter no. 314 "c" at first floor, Barwadih, District- Latehar.
5. The respondent-husband is a Loco Pilot (Electric) and later on promoted to the post of Chief Loco Inspector, Traction and posted at ECR, Barwadih under Divisional Manager, Dhanbad. Whereas after marriage, the appellant-wife got teachers‟ training from April, 2008 to September, 2008 and after successful completion of the training she joined the Govt. job as Assistant teacher in Uchch Prathmik Vidyalaya 2 2025:JHHC:26953-DB at village Gadi, Chhatrapati (Panchawan), P.O. Pachwan, P.S. Narki, District-Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh.
6. It is case of the respondent-husband before the Family Court that he is the only son of his parents and he hardly gets leave to visit his native place, but the appellant-wife never cared to look after his parents, nor interested to know about them although the place of posting of the respondent is within 10 km from the parental house of the respondent-
husband.
7. It is further case of the respondent-husband that the appellant-wife, after return from Barwadih on 23.10.2012, completely changed herself and was not intending even to talk with him and refused to live with him in future as wife without showing any reason.
8. It has further been stated that though the respondent-
husband, on 19.01.2013 went to the parental house of his wife for her Bidayee, but she refused to return to her in-laws house and also refused to share bed with him, which caused utter humiliation and cruelty to the respondent-husband resulting into a deserted life.
9. On seeing the conduct of the appellant-wife, the respondent-husband returned on the same day. Again on 14.04.2013, the respondent-husband [the petitioner in the suit] along with his father and near relatives went to the 3 2025:JHHC:26953-DB parental house of the appellant-wife for her Bidayee and to know the reasons for refusal, but the appellant-wife refused without any reason and in spite of the humble approach to convince her, the sincere effort went in vain. The appellant- wife and her parents conceded that it is refusal forever and now there cannot be any marital life between them.
10. It is stated that though both were living separately since more than two years and seeing the intention of the appellant-wife the respondent-husband ultimately sent a legal notice dated 13.01.2016 either to restore the relation or dissolve the marriage.
11. But the appellant-wife instead of showing to restore the relation send reply dated 29.01.2016 and claimed huge amount of gold and silver which allegedly was given at the time of Supurdagi to her as dowry and stridhan.
12. The said reply was admitted to be refusal on behalf of the appellant-wife. She had also threatened to send a copy of the notice to the D.R.M, East Central Railway. The said conduct of the appellant-wife caused mental cruelty and distress. In spite of the said reply by the appellant-wife he again approached the appellant-wife for her Bidayee on 13.02.16 which again was refused. It has been submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant-wife to continue the marital tie which is dead since 23.10.2012. 4
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
13. It had been submitted before the family Court that since the last four years of the filing of the suit, the parties are living separately and there is no likelihood of any resumption and the appellant-wife is not intending to carry over the marital life with the respondent-husband, rather is drifting from the life of the petitioner.
14. Thus, in view of the alleged cruelty and desertion the respondent-husband had filed suit being Original Suit No. 13 of 2017.
15. In the suit, notice was sent to the appellant-wife, through Nazarat as also by Post. The service report of Nazarat was not received. However, the learned family court has found that the notice sent to Registered post on 15.07.17 is said to have been delivered, according to the tracking report filed by the petitioner with party list dated 29.08.17, and the tracking report generated through the website of India Post show that the article was delivered on 24.07.2017. Considering the same, the service was accepted on 29.08.2017.
16. Accordingly, the matter was heard ex-parte.
17. The respondent-husband examined himself as P.W. 1, who reiterated the same thing. P.W. 2, Khurshid Alam Ansari, has drafted the Advocate Notice.
5
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
18. The learned family Court on the basis of pleadings available on record, passed ex-parte order -"that the marriage between the parties is dissolved herewith. Now onwards the parties will not be called respective spouses of either and all the marital ties between them is broken down finally. However, it is made clear that the respondent has not appeared to file her pleadings or there is any application for maintenance or permanent alimony nor there is any application u/s 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 regarding custody of children's. Thus, this court has not observed anything and that part is always open for its consideration in case such petition is filed by the parties. Let a decree accordingly be prepared, and a free copy of Decree be handed over to the party."
19. The appellant-wife, being aggrieved with the ex-parte order and decree of divorce passed by the learned Family Court approached this Court by filing instant appeal.
20. On being noticed, the respondent-husband appeared.
21. With the consent of parties, the matter was sent before JHALSA for amicable settlement of matrimonial dispute and date was fixed for such mediation on 9th March, 2021 between 10.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., as would be evident from order dated 01.03.2021.
22. But the mediation failed, report of which has been submitted before this Court vide letter dated 04.06.2021, as would be 6 2025:JHHC:26953-DB evident from order dated 24.06.2021. Accordingly, the matter was placed for hearing. Thereafter the matter was again placed before the Bench.
23. On 28.08.2024, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in order to make one more effort for amicable settlement directed both the parties to remain present in the Court for mediation on the next date of hearing fixing the date on 23.09.2024.
24. On 23.09.2024, the appellant-wife was physically present in the Court for settlement. But submission was made by learned counsel for the respondent that the husband is not ready to keep his wife however is ready for final settlement. The Co-ordinate Bench, taking into consideration the averment of the respondent-husband, directed the parties to come with proposal for final settlement. For ready reference, order dated 23rd September, 2024 is being quoted as under:
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant-wife is physically present in the Court.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent husband that he is not willing to keep his wife but is ready for final settlement.
4. The counsel for the parties is directed to utilize their good offices and come with proposal for final settlement.
5. Put up this case on 17th October, 2024."
25. Thereafter, when the matter was heard on 4th April, 2025, Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the 7 2025:JHHC:26953-DB appellant-wife, on instruction, has submitted that the appellant is ready for a onetime settlement if a permanent alimony of Rs. 50 Lakhs be extended to her as she has to marry off two daughters and spend a considerable amount on their education.
26. Upon this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband has submitted that he has to take instruction as to what amount the appellant will be able to afford as one time settlement in order to get the marriage finally dissolved. For ready reference, order dated 4th April, 2025 is being quoted as under:
"Mr. L.C.N. Shadeo, learned counsel appearing for the appellant on instruction in terms of the order dated 11.02.2025 has submitted that the appellant is ready for a onetime settlement if a permanent alimony of Rs. 50 Lakhs be extended to her as she has to marry off two daughters and spend a considerable amount on their education.
Ms. Oishi Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on being confronted with such offer has submitted that she has to take instruction as to what amount the appellant will be able to afford as one time settlement in order to get the marriage finally dissolved.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, let this case be listed on 06.05.2025 under the heading „For Orders‟."
27. When the matter was taken up on 7th May, 2025, learned counsel for both the parties has submitted that the 8 2025:JHHC:26953-DB party in person want to appear, accordingly, the matter was adjourned to be listed on 19th June, 2025.
28. On 19th June, 2025, the respondent-husband appeared before this Court and prayed for time to apprise this Court regarding the mode of payment on the issue of „One Time Settlement‟. He agreed that he has to take care of his two daughters, who are aged about seventeen and twelve years respectively. Considering the same, the matter was adjourned to be listed on 25.06.2025 and respondent- husband was directed to remain physically present on the next date of hearing. For ready reference, relevant portion of order dated 19th June, 2025 is quoted as under:
"The respondent-husband is present before this Court, who has prayed for few days to apprise the Court regarding the mode of payment on the issue of 'One Time Settlement'. He has agreed that he has to take care of his two daughters, who are aged about seventeen and twelve years respectively.
3. Considering the same, let this matter be listed on 25.06.2025, on which date, the respondent-husband shall remain physically present before this Court."
29. But, on 25.06.2025, a medical prescription was produced showing therein that the respondent-husband sustained injury, as such he could not come to Ranchi. 9
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
30. Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted that appellant-wife is an Assistant Teacher in the Govt. School but the appellant is contesting this case for the purpose of alimony of her two daughters, aged about 17 and 12 years respectively.
31. This Court, before considering the aforesaid issue, is of the view that the affidavits on behalf of both the parties, in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vrs. Neha & Anr., reported in [(2021) 2 SCC 324] is required to be filed stating therein regarding entire income and assets, movable and immovable for the purpose of consideration of issue of alimony. For ready reference, the order dated 25.06.2025 is quoted as under:
"Reference may be made to the order dated 19.06.2025, from which, it is evident that the Court has heard on the issue of One Time Settlement for upbringing of the Children and the expenditure which will incur in their study and marriage.
2. Admittedly herein, the respondent husband is working as Chief Loco Inspector in the Indian Railway posted at ECR, Barwadih under Divisional Manager, Dhanbad.
3. The respondent husband was directed to present physically before this Court today.
4. The copy of the medical prescription issued by the Barwadih Railway Health Unit has been produced showing therein that the respondent husband has sustained injury today itself and as such, he is not in a position to come to Ranchi.10
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
5. Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel for the respondent wife has submitted that appellant wife is an Assistant Teacher in the Govt. School but the appellant is contesting this case for the purpose of alimony of two daughters, namely, Samiksha and Mini aged about 17 and 12 years respectively.
6. This Court, before considering the aforesaid issue, is of the view that the affidavits on behalf of both the parties, in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vrs. Neha & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 stating therein regarding entire income and assets, movable and immovable for the purpose of consideration of issue of alimony.
7. Let such affidavit be filed within a week.
8. Let this matter be listed on 4th July, 2025.
9.Personal appearance of the respondent husband is, hereby, dispensed with."
32. In terms thereof, affidavit has been filed by the parties in the light of judgment passed in Rajnesh Vrs. Neha & Anr. (supra) and the matter has been heard on the issue of „permanent alimony‟ to meet the expense towards the education and marriage etc. of two daughters of the parties, who are presently living with her mother. Submission on behalf of appellant-wife:
33. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted that the respondent-husband has obtained ex- parte decree of divorce behind her back and immediately thereafter has contracted second marriage, which itself shows the conduct and intention of the respondent- 11
2025:JHHC:26953-DB husband, therefore, now there is no chance of re-union. Therefore, the appellant only confines his prayer with respect to well-being of her two daughters, which are admittedly borne out of the wedlock of appellant and respondent.
34. Submission has been made that admittedly the appellant-wife is working as Government teacher under the State of Uttar Pradesh and her net income is approx. 85,000/- per month whereas the respondent-husband is working in Indian Railway as Chief Loco Inspector, Traction, which is having much higher pay and allowances.
35. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted that this Court vide order dated 25.06.2025, in view of judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vrs. Neha & Anr. (supra), directed both the parties to file affidavit stating therein regarding entire income and assets, movable and immovable for the purpose of consideration of issue of alimony. Pursuant thereto, the affidavits have been filed by parties but the respondent- husband in his affidavit neither made any averment regarding his net salary nor enclosed his salary slip to disclose his salary only in order to shirk from his responsibility of paying alimony towards his daughters. 12
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
36. Further submission has been made that admittedly, the obligation of both the parents is to provide maintenance for their child‟s needs and ensure their well-being, irrespective of the separation or decree of divorce. Herein both the daughters are in the custody of mother and the respondent-father has never made any effort to have custody of their daughters, as he always wants to get rid of them but admittedly since the daughters are borne out of the wedlock of both the parties, as such it is also duty of the father, the non-custodial parent herein, to contribute the child‟s financial support at par with the father‟s income, status, need and their pre-separation life-style.
37. Submission has been made that herein since the children are girl, as such besides expenses towards education, higher studies, medical care there will be huge expense on their marriage since the daughters are living with their mother, who is now divorced, as such there would be great difficulty in getting them married and in that situation if there would be insufficiency of monetary support it would be very difficult for the appellant-wife to get them married in a society of their level at least.
38. Learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of aforesaid submission has submitted that for both the daughters at least rupees fifty lakhs ought to have been given by the respondent-husband and since the appellant is 13 2025:JHHC:26953-DB working as Govt. Teacher as such appellant is fair enough to submit that there is no need to award any permanent alimony or maintenance towards her.
Submission on behalf of respondent-husband
39. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has submitted that on the ground of cruelty and desertion, the respondent-husband filed suit before the family court, wherein though notice was validly served upon the appellant-wife, as held by the learned family court, but the appellant-wife chosen not to appear as such decree of divorce was passed.
40. So far as the issue of permanent alimony, towards daughters, is concerned, submission has been made that the respondent has no other source of income except the salary drawn by him from his employer. Further, submission has been made that the respondent has liability of housing loan, maintenance of widow mother, maintenance of his legally wedded wife [second marriage] and a two years old daughter.
41. Further submission has been made that the appellant is also working as Government Teacher, however, he is ready to provide a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- [five lakhs] each of his daughters by way of fixed deposit in their respective name, which may be encashed on attainment of majority.
14
2025:JHHC:26953-DB Analysis:
42. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading available on record as also the finding recorded by learned Principal Judge, Family Court.
43. Admittedly, the appellant has come before this Court against the ex-parte decree of divorce granted in favour of respondent-husband which was passed behind the back of the appellant-wife.
44. After filing of the appeal, the matter was sent for mediation with the consent of the parties but it failed.
45. In course of hearing, the respondent-husband appeared in person and submitted that the he is not willing to keep his wife but he is ready for one-time settlement in order to get the marriage finally dissolved, as would be evident from order dated 23rd September, 2024, as referred and quoted above.
46. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.11.2007 according to the Hindu rituals and during consummation of marriage, parties were blessed with two daughters, the eldest one born in the 2008 and the youngest born in the year 2013.
47. The respondent-husband is a Loco Pilot (Electric) and at present promoted to the post of Chief Loco Inspector, 15 2025:JHHC:26953-DB Traction whereas after marriage, the appellant-wife got teachers‟ training and after successful completion of the training she joined the Govt. job as Assistant teacher. It has come on record that the parties lived as husband and wife till September, 2012 and thereafter relationship among them become strainful.
48. It is case of the respondent-husband before the Family Court that he is the only son of his parents and he hardly gets leave to visit his native place, but the appellant- wife never cared to look after his parents, nor interested to know about them although the place of posting of the respondent is within 10 km from the parental house of the respondent-husband. It is further case of the respondent- husband that the appellant-wife, refused to live with him in future as wife without showing any rhymes and reason.
49. It has further been submitted that she also refused to share bed with respondent husband, which caused utter humiliation and cruelty to the respondent-husband resulting into a deserted life and further seeing the intention of the appellant-wife the respondent-husband ultimately sent a legal notice dated 13.01.2016 to appellant/wife either to restore the relation or dissolve the marriage. But the appellant-wife instead of showing to restore the relation send reply dated 29.01.2016 and claimed huge amount of gold and silver which allegedly was given at the time of Supurdagi 16 2025:JHHC:26953-DB to her as dowry and stridhan. In spite of the said reply by the appellant-wife he again approached the appellant-wife for her Bidayee on 13.02.16 which again was refused.
50. In view of the alleged cruelty and desertion the respondent-husband had filed suit being Original Suit No. 13 of 2017.
51. The learned family Court on the basis of pleadings available on record, passed ex-parte order in favour of the respondent husband by dissolving the marriage and observed that now onwards the parties will not be called respective spouses of either and all the marital ties between them is broken down finally.
52. The appellant-wife, being aggrieved with the ex- parte order and decree of divorce passed by the learned Family Court approached this Court by filing instant appeal.
53. This Court has gone through the previous order passed in the instant appeal passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court which has also been referred and quoted hereinabove wherefrom it is evident that in course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted that the respondent-husband has obtained ex- parte decree of divorce behind her back and immediately thereafter has contracted second marriage, which itself shows the conduct and intention of the respondent- 17
2025:JHHC:26953-DB husband, therefore, now there is no chance of re-union. In view thereof, the appellant only confines his prayer with respect to well-being of her two daughters, which are admittedly borne out of the wedlock of appellant and respondent.
54. This Court, considering the submission made on behalf of the appellant-wife, is not going into finding recorded by the learned family court with respect to the issue of „dissolution of marriage‟.
55. Therefore, the only issue remains to be decided is with respect to the issue of „permanent alimony‟.
56. Further from order dated 4th April, 2025, it is evident that the appellant wife is ready for a onetime settlement if a permanent alimony of Rs. 50 Lakhs be extended to her as she has to marry off two daughters and spend a considerable amount on their education, marriage etc.
57. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances the matter was heard on merit on the issue of permanent alimony.
58. It is evident from record that this Court, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 25.06.2025 directed the parties to file affidavit in the light of direction passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vrs. 18
2025:JHHC:26953-DB Neha & Anr. (supra). Accordingly, the affidavit has been filed by the parties disclosing their assets and liabilities.
59. In the case at hand, admittedly the respondent- husband is not fleeing away from his responsibility, rather, when he appeared in person on 19th June, 2025, he has undertaken that he has to take care of his two daughters. Furthermore, in the affidavit filed on 24.07.2025 at paragraph 8 he has stated that he is ready to provide a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each of his daughters by way of fixed deposits in their name.
60. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted minimum of Rs. 50 lakhs [fifty lakhs] i.e., 25 lakhs for each daughter as permanent alimony be given by the respondent-father.
61. Admittedly, in divorce cases, both the parents are duty bound to contribute the child's financial needs. This obligation is based on the principle that both parents are responsible for the well-being of their children, regardless of marital status. The specific amount and duration of alimony are to be determined considering factors like the food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, extracurricular activities), the parents' financial capacity (income, assets, liabilities), and the lifestyle the child enjoyed during the marriage and if any of the parents fail to pay child support, 19 2025:JHHC:26953-DB the other parent can seek legal recourse to enforce the court order, including salary attachment or other actions to recover the unpaid amount.
62. The Hon‟ble Apex Court recently in the case of Pravin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain [(2025) 2 SCC 227] while deciding the issue of permanent alimony and maintenance has considered the financial viability of the parties in the light of judgment passed in Rajnesh Vrs. Neha & Anr. (supra) and other judgments, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted is under:
"36. Before going into the details of the financial position of the parties, it is imperative that we highlight the position of law with regard to determination of permanent alimony. This Court, in a catena of judgments, has laid down the factors that needs to be considered in order to arrive at a just, fair and reasonable amount of permanent alimony.
37. 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 dependants; 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 Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar [Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 20 2025:JHHC:26953-DB : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] , and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal [Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 224 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 347] .
38. This Court in Rajnesh v. Neha [Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 220] , provided a comprehensive criterion and a 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, with specific emphasis on permanent alimony. The same has been reiterated by this Court in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel [Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) 13 SCC 66 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724] . The primary objective of granting permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not left without any support and means after the dissolution of the marriage. It aims at protecting the interests of the dependant spouse and does not provide for penalising the other spouse in the process. The Court in these two judgments laid down the following factors to be looked into:
38.1. Status of the parties, social and financial. 38.2. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependant children 38.3. Parties' individual qualifications and employment statuses.
38.4. Independent income or assets owned by the applicant.
38.5. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home.
38.6. Any employment sacrifices made for the family responsibilities.
21
2025:JHHC:26953-DB 38.7. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
38.8. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.
39. These are only guidelines and not a straitjacket rubric. These among such other similar factors become relevant.
40. This Court in Kiran Jyot Maini [Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) 13 SCC 66 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724] , while discussing the husband's obligation to maintain the wife and the importance of his financial capacity in deciding the quantum, observed that : (SCC para 26) "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 fair maintenance award. The court must consider the husband's standard of living and the impact of inflation and high living costs. Even if the husband claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn, given his education and qualifications, is to be taken into account. The courts shall ensure that the relief granted is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved party was accustomed. The court's approach should be to balance all relevant factors to avoid maintenance amounts that are either excessively high or unduly low, ensuring that the dependant spouse can live with reasonable comfort post-separation."
63. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts and case laws, this Court has to ascertain the amount and duration of alimony, to be determined considering factors like the food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, 22 2025:JHHC:26953-DB extracurricular activities), the parents' financial capacity (income, assets, liabilities), and the lifestyle the children enjoyed during the marriage in the light of affidavit filed by the parties.
64. In pursuance to the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by this Court, both the parties filed affidavit.
65. The appellant-wife in her affidavit and annexure thereto has stated that she is living in the rented house with her two daughters aged about 17 and 12 years respectively and further stated that she has no other source of income save and except her salary. She has fairly disclosed her salary to be Rs. 85,270/- as drawn in January, 2025, in support thereof, she has annexed the salary slip. She has further stated that she has taken personal loan of rupees ten lakhs. So far maintenance upon the two daughters are concerned, she has stated that rupees fifty thousand [Rs.55,000/-] approx. is incurred on monthly basis. Besides, there is expenditure on herself also.
66. Besides she has also claimed that gold ornaments of about 300 grams and silver ornaments of 750 grams are in possession of the respondent-husband, which he is not returning.
23
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
67. In the affidavit she has further stated that her spouse [husband] is having handsome salary having basic of Rs. 78,800/- in addition thereto 53% Dearness allowance; House Rent Allowance and other allowances and perks, as per Central Government. Further submission has been made that the respondent-husband has his own house besides two acres of landed property at his parental place.
68. We have also perused the affidavit filed by the respondent-husband, wherein he has stated that he has no other source of income other than salary. When this Court perused annexure A/1, as annexed with the Affidavit, has found that in the column "F.Details of Income of the Deponent‟, he has disclosed his designation as „Chief Loco Inspector‟ but he has nowhere disclosed his salary rather simply said that salary as per „salary slip‟. But he very cunningly did not annex the salary. While disclosing the liability he has shown the loan of Rs. 28,00,000/-. So far immovable property is concerned he has stated that he has his own house and two acres of landed property at his parental place. Furthermore, in support of his salary/income or liability he has not annexed any salary slip for the reasons best known to him.
24
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
69. This Court treats it very serious and condemn the conduct of the respondent-husband as on the one hand, he has shown his bona fide and submitted that he has to take care of his two daughters, who are aged about seventeen and twelve years respectively but on the other hand he did not disclose his income in figure.
70. It further appears from the affidavits filed on behalf of parties in particular at column „F.Details of Income of the Dependent‟ i.e, the respondent-husband herein, that he has disclosed the basic salary of Rs. 78,800/- in addition thereto 53% Dearness allowance; House Rent Allowance and other allowances and perks, as per Central Government. In the column of „disclosure of salary‟ at column no. „F.4‟ the respondent-husband has very cunningly has stated his salary as per salary slip but very surprisingly he did not enclose the salary slip with the affidavit, which shows the conduct of the respondent- husband as on the one hand he has undertaken before this Court he has to take care of his daughters and is ready to extend all support in particular monetary support but on the other he did not want to disclose his salary in unequivocal term though he is Government Servant working in Indian Railway on a higher post.
71. Admittedly in divorce cases, both the parents are duty bound to contribute to the child's financial needs 25 2025:JHHC:26953-DB and for ascertaining their obligations, the income of the parent in whose custody the children are there as also the non-custodial parent.
72. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Pravin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain (supra) taking into consideration that the appellant therein is well- accomplished banker is earning Rs. 10-12 lakhs per month and the wife is non-working and further the only son has completed the B.Tech degree, who is with the wife, awarded permanent alimony to the wife to the tune of Rs. 5 crores and Rs. 1 crore for the son. Besides, during pendency of the proceeding, maintenance was also granted.
73. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment passed in Pravin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain (supra), which has considered the catena of judgments passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court governing the field, is quoted as under:
"41. In the present case, it is a matter of record and an admitted fact that the respondent is unemployed while the appellant is a well-accomplished banker who has worked in multiple senior roles at various banks over the years. We have perused the records of finances produced before us. Even though the records of the demat accounts and the employment letters produced by the appellant are almost ten years ago or earlier, his financial position can be suitably ascertained from them.26
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
42. It is admitted on record that the respondent is a homemaker and has not been working in all these years, the son lives with her, who has now completed his BTech course, and they reside in a house owned by the respondent's mother. The appellant has paid for the son's education as well as paid the interim maintenance as ordered by the Family Court. The son is now major and has also completed his graduation.
43. The appellant is currently working as the Chief Executive Officer of Vision Bank in Dubai and his estimated salary is about AED 50,000 per month which means that he is earning around Rs 10 to 12 lakhs per month. Though he has filed details of his demat accounts from 2010, it is revealed that he had investments of around Rs 5 crores at that time. Further, he has three properties worth approximately Rs 2 crores, Rs 5 crores and Rs 10 crores, respectively.
44. During the period of cohabitation, the parties were initially residing in Mumbai when the appellant was working as a Foreign Exchange Executive with Global Trust Bank and subsequently in Chennai when the appellant changed his job. The appellant has worked at multiple positions in prestigious banks and stayed in metropolitan cities with the respondent during the subsistence of the marriage.
46. It is not disputed that the appellant has the legal obligation as well as the financial capacity to maintain the respondent after dissolution of the marriage. As held by us in Kiran Jyot Maini [Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) 13 SCC 66 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724] , it is also necessary to ensure that the amount of permanent alimony should not penalise the husband but should be made with the aim of ensuring a decent standard of living for the wife.
47. Considering the material on record, the totality of the circumstances and the facts of this case, a one-time settlement amount with provision for the respondent as well as the son, would be a fair arrangement. For the 27 2025:JHHC:26953-DB respondent, considering the standard of living enjoyed by her during subsistence of the marriage, the prolonged period of separation, and the appellant's financial capacity, a one-time settlement amount of Rs 5 crores (Rupees five crores only), appears to be just, fair and reasonable amount for the respondent to be paid by the appellant towards settlement of all pending claims also.
48. It is also equitable and only obligatory for a father to provide for his children, especially when they have the means and the capacity to do the same. Even though the son is now major and has just finished his engineering degree, the High Court has rightly observed that it is only after completion of a college/university degree and in some cases, completing a post- graduation/professional degree, would the child be able to secure employment. In fact, it can safely be concluded that, in today's competitive world, gainful employment may be feasible only after the child has pursued education beyond 18 years of age. Mere completion of his engineering degree does not guarantee a gainful employment, in these competitive times. The appellant herein has sufficient means to support his child, and thus provision should also be made for his maintenance and financial security as well. An amount of Rs 1 crore (Rupees one crore only) towards the maintenance and care of the son appears to be fair, which he can utilise for his higher education and as security till he becomes financially independent.
49. Therefore, we fix the abovementioned amount as one-time settlement amount to be paid by the appellant to the respondent and his son within a period of four months from the date of this judgment.
50. Consequently, the appeals are disposed of with the above observations and directions to the parties. Accordingly, decree of divorce be granted in exercise of 28 2025:JHHC:26953-DB this Court's power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Further, the appellant shall pay the amount provided above towards permanent alimony to the respondent and his son within the time stipulated above. The Registry to draw a decree accordingly."
74. Herein, both the daughters are living with appellant-wife and admittedly the appellant-wife is working but having much less salary than that of respondent-husband. Further, the appellant-wife is living in a rented house with her daughters whereas the appellant on oath has stated that he is living in his own house and further he is having some landed property also.
75. From the pleadings available on record, it is evident that nowhere it is stated by the respondent-husband that he has made any effort for custody of the children rather the appellant-wife has claimed that the respondent- husband had all time tried to get rid of his wife [appellant] and daughters and immediately after obtaining ex-parte decree of divorce contracted second marriage. It further appears that the appellant-wife all along has stated that she wants to live with the respondent-husband but the respondent-husband, who appeared in person, has clearly stated that he does not want to lead conjugal life with the appellant and he offered for one time settlement for decree of divorce.
29
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
76. In the case at hand since the appellant-wife is working as Government Teacher and she can lead her life without any financial hurdle as such she has herself submitted that she has demanded the alimony for her daughters only.
77. So far submission which has been made by the appellant-wife that since the children are girl, as such besides expenses towards education, higher studies, medical care there will be huge expense on their marriage since the daughters are living with their mother, who is now divorcee, as such there would be great difficulty in getting them married and in that situation if there would be insufficiency of monetary support it would be very difficult for the appellant-wife to get them married in a society of their level at least, this Court is in agreement with such submission.
78. Therefore, this Court on the basis of aforesaid facts, pleadings and considering the conduct of the respondent- husband, is of the view that the amount to the tune of Rs. 5 lakh each to the daughter is not enough taking into consideration the income of the respondent, who is working as Chief Loco Inspector in the Indian Railway
79. There is no gainsaying of the fact that alimony is not intended to penalize the husband or the wife, as the case may be, rather to ensure the child's well-being and 30 2025:JHHC:26953-DB financial security but the alimony should be taking into consideration the lifestyle the child enjoyed during the marriage besides other factors. The father is duty bound to maintain his child irrespective of the income of mother.
80. Therefore, this Court, taking into consideration the view taken in the case of Pravin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain (supra) and the factual aspect involved herein, is of the view that for the needs of two daughters aged about 17 and 12 years respectively i.e., for their future survival including food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, extracurricular activities as also the marriage an amount in total of Rs. 40 lakhs is required to be given by the respondent-husband taking into account the income etc.
81. In view thereof, the respondent-appellant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs only [20 lakhs each for two daughters], within a period of four months from the date of passing of this order, which shall be deposited, by way of fix deposit, separately in two joint accounts, holder of which be the mother and respective daughters [i.e., one in the name of mother and elder daughter and another in the name of mother and younger daughter] for the purpose of higher studies and for marriage etc. of the daughters.
31
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
82. This Court further needs to refer herein that in case if the order will not be adhered to by the respondent- husband, the appellant will be at liberty to make appropriate application before Court concerned.
83. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
84. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Alankar/A.F.R.
32