Jharkhand High Court
Sanicharwa Manjhi @ Mangla Manjhi vs Atwari Devi Wife Of Sanicharwa Manjhi @ ... on 26 March, 2026
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 174 of 2025
Sanicharwa Manjhi @ Mangla Manjhi, aged about 53 years
son of Late Shanu Manjhi, resident of Village-Chalkari,
Tola, Harlodih, P.O. & P.S.-Peterbar, District-Bokaro.
... ... Appellant/ Petitioner
Versus
Atwari Devi wife of Sanicharwa Manjhi @ Mangla Manjhi,
D/o Late Som Manjhi, resident of village-Ponda, P.O.-
Ponda, P.S.-Kasmar, District-Bokaro.
... ... Opp. Party/Respondent
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahato, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahatha, Advocate
----------------------------
C.A.V. on 19th March, 2026 Pronounced on26/03/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.05.2025 and decree signed on 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) in Original Suit No. 200 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the petitioner-appellant [husband] for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent-wife, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the divorce petition by the appellant-petitioner, as taken note in the 1 2026:JHHC:8777-DB impugned order, needs to be referred herein, which reads as under:
3. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent according to Santhal rites and custom on 15.01.1989. After marriage the appellant and respondent led their conjugal life and out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with a son namely, Santosh Soren. Further case of petitioner is that in the month of January, 1992, relationship between the parties become strained for which, on 07.02.1992 a meeting was called for in presence of Manjhi Hadam in which the parties agreed to part their ways by way of dissolution of marriage. It is alleged that in the meeting, the respondent has admitted that there was no cohabitation between her with the appellant since last two years and she had illicit relationship with some other person. After hearing the statements of the parties, the Manjhi Hadam Committee and Ponda dissolved their marriage on 07.02.1992 subject to the condition that the appellant would give 10 decimals of land to his son Santosh Soren for which an agreement was also executed. Thereafter, the appellant has solemnized his second marriage with Kajol Kumari @ Kajri Devi in presence of Manjhi Hadam Committee.
4. Thereafter, the appellant has presented an application before the G.M. Office, Karo, CCL to endorse the name of his 2 2026:JHHC:8777-DB second wife as his nominee, but the officer denied to add the name of Kajri Devi as nominee and suggested to bring a divorce certificate from the competent court.
5. On the backdrop of aforesaid fact, the appellant filed a suit being Original Suit No. 200 of 2023 before the learned additional family court.
6. On being noticed, the respondent appeared on 21.08.2023 but did not file written statement as such the learned family court vide order dated 22.11.2023 debarred the respondent- wife from filing her written statement.
7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat framed issues for adjudication of the case and after framing the issues both the parties were directed to adduce evidence on their behalf.
8. The appellant-petitioner has examined altogether four witnesses in support of his case, as P.W.1-Suresh Manjhi; P.W.2-Shanicharwa Manjhi @ Mangla Manjhi, the appellant himself; P.W.3 Kajri Devi and P.W.4-Kartik Manjhi. Whereas the respondent has examined three witnesses in her support as D.W. 1-Santosh Kumar Soren, the son; D.W.2-Atwari Devi, the respondent herself and D.W. 3-Shanichar Manjhi [brother of the appellant].
9. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional family court, after appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of 3 2026:JHHC:8777-DB parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-husband, the appellant herein, could not prove the ingredients of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife, as such it was held that the petitioner-husband is not entitled to get a decree of divorce, against which, the instant appeal has been preferred.
10. Before this Court, on being noticed, the respondent-wife has appeared and contested the appeal.
11. On 9th February, 2026, the matter was taken up. This Court deliberated upon the counsel of the parties, "whether is there any scope of mediation". Upon this Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no chance of mediation/re-union, since, the appellant has solemnized marriage sometime in the year 1992. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that although, the marriage was solemnized in the year, 1992 but the divorce suit has been filed in the year 2023, i.e., after lapse of 33 years. The reason behind is that now the appellant is at the verge of superannuation and as such, in order to deprive the respondent-wife and the son, who is living with the respondent, the suit for divorce has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has further submitted that since, second marriage has been solemnized and as such, now the only question remains for alimony.
4
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
12. Accordingly, the matter proceeded and learned counsel for the appellant-husband was directed to file affidavit giving details of pay-scale along with the pay slip and what amount he is to get after superannuation. For ready reference, order dated 9th February, 2026 is quoted as under:
"1.In pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2025, learned counsel for the appellant-husband has handed over the amount of Rs.11,000/- to the respondent-wife. The wife has received the same in cash.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. We have deliberated upon from the counsel of the parties, "whether is there any scope of mediation".
4. Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no chance of mediation/re-union, since, the appellant has solemnized marriage sometime in the year 1992.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-wife that although, the marriage was solemnized in the year, 1992 but the divorce suit has been filed in the year 2023, i.e., after lapse of 33 years. The reason behind is that now the appellant is at the verge of superannuation and as such, in order to deprive the respondent-wife and the son, who is living with the respondent, this divorce suit has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that since, the marriage has been solemnized and as such, now only question remains for alimony.
7. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, hereby, directs the learned counsel for the parties to file an affidavit showing their source of income.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband is directed to refer in the affidavit the pay-scale along with the pay slip and what amount he is to get after superannuation. 5
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
9. It is made clear that if in case of any doubt, then, this Court will verify the statements from the employer, i.e., the CCL by impleading the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the CCL as a party.
10. List this matter on 24.02.2026.
13. In terms of the said order affidavit has been filed by the appellant disclosing his income etc. and the matter has been heard.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has submitted that for granting divorce the respondent has already given her consent as per customs of Santhal Community. Further, the respondent has deserted the appellant since 1992 which itself is cruelty and a ground for granting divorce. But these facts have not been considered by learned Additional Family Court and dismissed the suit on non-est grounds.
15. So far as the issue of permanent alimony is concerned, submission has been made that the appellant is General Majdoor in CCL, B &K Area, Karo and referring to pay-slip of January, 2026 submission has been made that he is getting Net Salary of Rs. 98,350.51/-.
16. It has been contended that the appellant has been appointed on compassionate ground upon the death of his father and as such there is liability to maintain the other family members also. He has four brothers and other than that he has his own 03 children from the wedlock of his second wife. Besides, he is presently maintaining the first wife and son 6 2026:JHHC:8777-DB born out of wedlock of his first wife and incurring the expenses incurred on his education etc. also.
17. Besides that, as per the direction of learned family court he is paying monthly maintenance of Rs. 8000/- since 15.09.2023 to the respondent, the first wife.
18. In the affidavit, the appellant has declared that he has no landed property rather he resides at village Chalkari Tola Harlodih, which is his maternal place.
19. The appellant has further stated in the affidavit that he would retire in January, 2032 and after retirement there would have no source of income other than yearly pension, which as per pay-slip would be Rs. 95,651/-
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-wife:
20. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- wife has submitted that due to atrocities extended to the respondent, she filed complaint case being complaint case no. 244 of 2001 under Section 498A IPC, which ended in compromise but when the terms and condition of the compromise was violated, a Panchayati was held in which an agreement was drawn where the appellant agreed to keep the respondent with full honour and dignity.
21. So far the claim of the appellant-husband that there is separation as alleged since 1992 is concerned, submission has been made that it is false statement and even an agreement was made on 18.08.2012 wherefrom it is evident 7 2026:JHHC:8777-DB that the appellant agreed to maintain his wife and his son with full honour and dignity.
22. Further submission has been made that in the Original Suit No. 327 of 2023, the appellant has disclosed his salary to be Rs. 1,06,000/- per month and the court concerned granted maintenance of Rs. 8000/- but not a single penny amount has been paid till date, which shows the mala fide intention of the appellant-husband towards her wife.
23. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that though the respondent-wife intends to reside with the appellant but the appellant does not want to keep her and solemnized second marriage during life time of his first wife, the respondent herein, and only in order to deprive her and her son and in order to remove the name of respondent from his service-book, appellant hatched a conspiracy with Kajri Devi, the alleged second wife.
24. In course of hearing on 09.02.2023, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that at this stage since the appellant has now solemnized second marriage and not ready to keep her, as such the only question remains for alimony.
25. On this score, submission has been made that she has no source of income to survive with his only son.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent referring to pay-slip has submitted that the appellant is monthly salary of 8 2026:JHHC:8777-DB Rs.1,51,079/- [one Lakh fifty one thousand and seventy nine] and the gross annual salary comes to Rs.1960341/- [Nineteen lakh sixty thousand and three forty one].
27. Further submission has been made that the appellant is working in Central Coalfields Limited, a Central Government Undertaking and by this way even the provident fund and other savings are there for the appellant's present necessity and also for his future necessity besides salary. But the life of the respondent and his son who is living with the respondent is at a very pitiable condition.
28. Further submission has been made that the salary of the appellant would increase after every six months on increase of Dearness Allowance and every year on account of annual increment and further there will be huge amount of hike in salary due to forthcoming Pay-Commission(s) and promotion(s)/ACP/MACP and even after retirement the appellant-husband would get huge amount of retiral benefit as also the pension but the respondent-wife and his son, who is living with his mother, has to survive on the interest earned on the permanent alimony granted in favour of the respondent. Therefore, considering the life expectancy and the fact that the respondent-wife and her son has to survive on the interest earned from that amount, the amount of permanent alimony may be awarded, so that they can live in reasonable comfort considering the status and mode of life 9 2026:JHHC:8777-DB they would have used to live when they lived with appellant- husband.
29. Further submission has been made that considering the conduct of the appellant-husband, who on previous occasion has defaulted in making payment of interim maintenance as awarded by learned Additional Family Judge, prayer has been made that in case of default in making payment, direction may be given to the employer that in case of default, the amount as awarded by the Court after deduction from his Provident Fund or salary etc. the same may be given; as also liberty may be given to move before appropriate forum for compliance of the order passed by this Court.
Analysis:
30. 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.
31. The fact, which is necessary to reiterate herein, is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent according to the Santhal rites and custom on 15.01.1989. After marriage the appellant and respondent led their conjugal life and out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with son namely, Santosh Soren. Further case of petitioner is that in the month of January, 1992, relationship between the parties become strained for which, 10 2026:JHHC:8777-DB on 07.02.1992 a meeting was called for in presence of Manjhi Hadam in which the parties agreed to part their ways by way of dissolution of their marriage and accordingly, the Manjhi Hadam Committee and Ponda dissolved their marriage on 07.02.1992 subject to the condition that the petitioner would give 10 decimals of land to his son Santosh Soren for which an agreement was also executed. Thereafter, the appellant has solemnized his second marriage with Kajol Kumari @ Kajri Devi in presence of Manjhi Hadam Committee. After that, the appellant presented an application before the G.M. Office, Karo, CCL to endorse the name of his second wife as his nominee, but the officer denied to add the name of Kajri Devi as nominee and suggested to bring a divorce certificate from the competent court. On the backdrop of aforesaid fact, the appellant filed the suit before the learned additional family court.
32. On being noticed, the respondent appeared before the learned court on 21.08.2023 but did not file written statement.
33. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional family court, after appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-husband, the appellant herein, could not prove the ingredients of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife, as such it was held 11 2026:JHHC:8777-DB that the petitioner-husband is not entitled to get a decree of divorce.
34. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the learned family court, the appellant-husband has preferred the present appeal. However, after appearance of the respondent-wife, the parties have agreed for permanent settlement and accordingly submission has been made in support thereof.
35. This Court in the aforesaid backdrop facts and submission requires to consider as to: "what would be the quantum of permanent alimony to meet the needs of the wife on the basis of pleadings available on record and as per the standard of life she would have enjoyed had she been living with the appellant?"
36. 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 12 2026:JHHC:8777-DB income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent. For ready reference, Section 25 of the Act, 1955 is quoted as under:
"25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.--(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant 1 [the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case], it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.
(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.
(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, 2 [it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just]."
37. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that concept of permanent alimony as provided under Section 25 have been 13 2026:JHHC:8777-DB enacted with the object of removing the hardship of the wife or the husband with no independent income sufficient for living or meeting litigant expenses; such a leave can be granted as well who may also be deprived of the same on proof of having sexual intercourse outside the wedlock. It is also settled position of law that the Court may grant permanent alimony to the party while disposing of the main application even if application has been moved; meaning thereby the intent of the Act is to remove the handicap/hardship of a wife or husband by passing an appropriate order at the appropriate stage either under Section 24 or 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The basic behind this is to sustain the live of husband or wife, if having no sufficient source of income.
38. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the intent of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act in catena of Judgments wherein it has been observed that Section 25 of Act 1955 is an enabling provision. It empowers the court in a matrimonial case to consider facts and circumstances of the spouse applying and deciding whether or not to grant permanent alimony. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 provides that a matrimonial Court exercising the jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act may at the time of passing a decree or at any time subsequent thereto on an Application made to it, order to pay maintenance.
14
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
39. Thus, a power is conferred on the Matrimonial Court to grant permanent alimony or maintenance on the basis of a decree of divorce passed under the Hindu Marriage Act even subsequent to the date of passing of the decree on the basis of an application made in that behalf. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 confers a power on the Court to vary, modify or rescind the order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 in case of change in circumstances. The power under Sub- section (3) of Section 25 is an independent power. The said power can be exercised if the Court is satisfied that the wife in whose favour an order under Subsection (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made has not remained chaste. In such event, at the instance of the other party, the Court may vary, modify or rescind the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
40. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200.For ready reference, paragraph 14 of the judgment is quoted as under:
"14. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers power upon the court to grant a permanent alimony to either spouse who claims the same by making an application. Sub- section (2) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act confers ample power on the court to vary, modify or discharge any order for permanent alimony or permanent maintenance that may have been made in any proceeding under the Act under 15 2026:JHHC:8777-DB the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 25. In exercising the power under Section 25(2), the court would have regard to the "change in the circumstances of the parties". There must be some change in the circumstances of either party which may have to be taken into account when an application is made under sub-section (2) of Section 25 for variation, modification or rescission of the order as the court may deem just."
41. We may note here that an substitution has been brought to Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act with effect from 27th May 1997. Earlier, it was provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 that if the Court was satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made has not remained chaste, it shall rescind the order. The words "it shall rescind the order"
appearing in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 were replaced by the said amendment by the words "it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order .....". The legislature in its wisdom by the said substitution has provided that after the facts stated in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act are established, the Court may vary, modify or rescind any such order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, after 1976, there is a discretion conferred on the Court by Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of declining to rescind, vary or modify the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 thereof, even if on an Application made by the husband/wife, it is established that the husband/wife has not remained 16 2026:JHHC:8777-DB chaste after the decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-
section (1) of Section 25.
42. 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 thatfor permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent's own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
12. As per Section 25, while considering the claim for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent's own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. It is further seen that the court considering such claim has to consider all the above relevant materials and determine the amount which is to be just for living standard. No fixed formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has to be in the nature of things which depend on various facts and circumstances of each case.
The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is 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 17 2026:JHHC:8777-DB courts have to be kept (sic keep) in mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony.
43. It needs to refer herein that no arithmetic formula can be adopted for grant of permanent alimony to wife. However, status of parties, their respective social needs, financial capacity of husband and other obligations must be taken into account. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
33. We have reproduced the aforesaid orders to highlight that the husband had agreed to buy a flat at Hyderabad. However, when the matter was listed thereafter, there was disagreement with regard to the locality of the flat arranged by the husband and, therefore, the matter was heard on merits. We have already opined that the husband has made out a case for divorce by proving mental cruelty. As a decree is passed, the wife is entitled to permanent alimony for her sustenance. Be it stated, while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective 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 18 2026:JHHC:8777-DB 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.
44. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr [(2021) 2 SCC 324] the Hon'ble Apex Court has extensively dealt with the issue of granting interim/permanent alimony and has categorically held that the objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the Court while considering the issue of maintenance, should consider the factors like the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
19
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-
working wife. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290]
79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the 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 20 2026:JHHC:8777-DB maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [ReemaSalkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
45. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan [2025 SCC OnLine SC1259] has enhanced the amount of alimony subject to increase of alimony on every two years.
46. This Court has considered the factual aspect of the said case and on perusal of the fact, referred therein, it is evident that in the said case, the appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on 18.06.1997. A son was born to them on 05.08.1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the appellant-wife. Subsequently, the appellant-wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 in the same suit under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son. The Trial Court, by order 21 2026:JHHC:8777-DB 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 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 22 2026:JHHC:8777-DB 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.
47. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the appellant-wife is approached the Hon'ble Apex Court.
48. The Hon'ble Apex Court, by interim order dated 07.11.2023, noting the absence of representation on behalf of the respondent-husband despite proof of service, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs. 75,000/- with effect from 01.11.2023. The respondent-husband subsequently entered appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim order.
49. 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 23 2026:JHHC:8777-DB commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the parties during the marriage.
50. In response, the respondent-husband submits that his current net monthly income is Rs. 1,64,039/-, earned from his employment at the Institute of Hotel Management, Taratala, Kolkata. He has placed on record salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for the year 2023-2024. It is further stated that he was earlier employed with the Taj Hotel, drawing a gross annual salary of Rs. 21,92,525/-. He also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs. 1,72,088/-, and that he has remarried, has a dependent family, and aged parents. The respondent-husband contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially dependent.
51. The Hon'ble Apex Court taking note of the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court has come to the conclusion that it requires revision. The said revision is on the basis of the respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings which establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. It has also been observed, the inflationary cost of 24 2026:JHHC:8777-DB living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.
52. Therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. The said amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, the Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed its view that the Court is not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. It has been clarified that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.
53. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court was modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the said order is being quoted as under:
"7. Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she 25 2026:JHHC:8777-DB enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.
8. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, as noted above."
54. In the instant case, it is evident that the appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on 15.01.1989 and son was born out of their wedlock. Allegedly, after panchayati being taken place in the year 1992, the appellant contracted second marriage in the life time of his first wife. The first wife, the respondent herein had filed one complaint case being Complaint Case No. 244 of 2001 under Section 498A IPC, which ended in compromise but when the terms and condition of the compromise was violated, a Panchayati was held in which an agreement was drawn where the appellant agreed to keep the respondent with full honour and dignity. Further Original Suit No. 327 of 2023, was also filed in which maintenance to the tune of of Rs. 8000/-has been awarded but allegedly but not a single penny amount has been paid till date.
26
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
55. The marriage was solemnized in the year 1989 and the appellant has filed the suit for divorce in the year 2023 i.e., after 33 years of marriage. Out of their wedlock one son is also there. But, during the subsistence of first marriage and the lifetime of first wife, the appellant solemnized second marriage, which fact is admitted one. As per the case of the appellant, when the appellant intended to enter the name of his second wife and children born out of the wedlock of second wife, the CCL authorities refused to enter their name and asked to furnish the divorce decree of first wife, then only such entry would be made.
56. In the backdrop of these facts, the appellant filed the suit for divorce which has been dismissed, against which the present appeal has been filed.
57. In this Court, learned counsel for the appellant-husband, on instruction, has submitted that there is no chance of re- union.
58. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that since the appellant has solemnized second marriage and did not want to live with her, as such the parties agreed for settlement by way of permanent alimony. Accordingly, affidavit has been filed on behalf of appellant-husband showing his income etc.
59. We have perused the affidavit filed by the appellant-husband wherefrom it is evident that the appellant is working in the 27 2026:JHHC:8777-DB Central Coalfields Limited, a Government of India Undertaking. From the salary-slip as annexed with the affidavit filed by the appellant-husband, it is evident that his Gross Salary is Rs. 1,51,079/-. It is further evident that his annual gross is Rs. 1836830/- and so far deductions are concerned, i.e., Rs. 17175/- towards CMPF-Coal Mines Provident Fund]; Rs. 8854-CMPS -Coal Mines Pension Scheme; Rs. 5051 toward LIC Premium; and Rs. 21339 towards income tax. Meaning thereby save and except the amount deducted towards income tax to the tune of Rs. 21339, other deductions are the savings towards his future. Further, the service of the appellant is pensionable one and as per the affidavit filed by the appellant he would receive an amount of Rs. 95,651/- towards annual pension. But, certainly, the amount so shown by him is as per the salary and saving towards pension fund and it may increase at the time of superannuation of the appellant.
60. However, from the affidavit or from the salary slip, there is no reflection of the total amount of provident fund which accrued in his Provident Fund Account. The appellant has also not shown his other savings though allegedly since long is in service. Further, as per the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-wife, the appellant till date had not paid a penny of amount towards maintenance as has been directed by the learned family court. 28
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
61. Further ground has been taken on behalf of respondent-wife that the salary of the appellant would increase after every six months on increase of Dearness Allowance and every year on account of annual increment and further there will be huge amount of hike in salary due to forthcoming Pay- Commissions and promotions/ACP/MACP and even after retirement the appellant-husband would get huge amount of retiral benefit towards -provident fund amount, leave encashment, gratuity etc. as also the yearly pension but the respondent-wife and their son, who is living with his mother, has to survive on the interest earned on the permanent alimony granted in favour of the respondent.
62. Further submission has been made that considering the life expectancy of the respondent-wife; and further taking into consideration the future inflation etc., a huge amount would require however, a considerable amount may be directed to be paid for survival of the wife on the interest earned from that amount.
63. This Court, considering the submissions advanced on behalf of parties and law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, has again perused the affidavit filed by the appellant-husband and found therefrom that the appellant's Gross Salary is Rs. 1,51,079/- and even after retirement he will get a considerable amount towards retiral dues and he would also get regular pension.
29
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
64. Whereas on the other hand, the respondent-wife has to survive for his livelihood solely on the amount of permanent alimony so given by the appellant-husband.
65. This Court, taking life expectancy of the wife and the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute vis-à-vis the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her husband, is of the view that a minimum amount of Rs. 30 lakhs would be just and proper.
66. This Court is conscious that the appellant-husband is also to survive and he has other liability and responsibility but it is also his utmost duty to maintain the standard of life of the respondent-wife and his son, they would have enjoyed during subsistence of the marriage as per income and status of his husband, the appellant herein.
67. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court thought it proper that a sum of Rs. 3000000/- [thirty lakhs] in total as one time permanent alimony would be just, fair and reasonable, for sustenance of the respondent-wife, who has no other source of income other than the amount alimony so received by the appellant-husband for her livelihood and sustenance. The 30 2026:JHHC:8777-DB said amount shall be paid by him in three equal installments within a period of 12 months from the date of passing of the order and first installment shall be paid within a period of one month from today.
68. It is made clear that since it is admitted fact that one son born out of the wedlock of the appellant and respondent, as such the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.
69. This Court, considering the factual aspect involved in the case and particularly the fact the conduct of the appellant- husband that he did not pay any amount towards interim maintenance as per the order passed by learned Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat, grants liberty to the respondent- wife that if the amount is not credited to her account, as per the direction passed by this Court, the respondent-wife will be at liberty to approach the court of law in accordance with law.
70. This Court, however, 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.
71. Accordingly, the order/judgment dated 14.05.2025 and decree signed on 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo 31 2026:JHHC:8777-DB at Tenughat (Bokaro) in Original Suit No. 200 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside, and the marriage is dissolved, subject to the final payment of alimony to the tune of Rs.3000000/- [thirty lakhs], as directed by this Court.
72. With the aforesaid the directions and observations, as made hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed and decreed in the above terms.
73. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
26th March, 2026
A.F.R
Alankar/-
32