[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Akanksha Sahu vs Tarachand Sahu on 16 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:12427-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 3 of 2024
1 - Tarachand Sahu S/o Shri Kaushal Prasad, Aged About 32
Years R/o Village Bhothiya, P.S. And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District
Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Akansha Sahu W/o Tarachand Sahu D/o Shri Itwari
Ram Sahu, Aged About 31 Years Community Health Center
Sakti, P.S. And Tah. Sakti, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
FA(MAT) No. 48 of 2024
1 - Smt. Akanksha Sahu W/o Tarachand Sahu (D/o Itwari Ram
Sahu) , Aged About 29 Years R/o Community Health Center,
Sakti Police Station And Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Chmpa
(Now District Sakti) Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant(s)
Versus
1 - Tarachand Sahu S/o Kaushal Prasad Sahu, Caste Sahu,
Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bhothiya, Police Station And
Police Station And Tahsil Jaijaipur District Janjgir Chmpa (Now
District Sakti) Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant/Husband : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent/Wife : Mr. K.K. Pandey and Mr. Rakesh
Kumar Manikpuri, Advocates
DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment On Board
16.03.2026
1. Since common question of law and facts is involved in both
of these appeals and since both of them have been filed
being aggrieved by a common order, therefore, they have
been clubbed together, heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment.
2. The appellant/husband as well as the respondent/wife,
both have questioned the impugned judgment and decree
dated 15/12/2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Link
Court Family Court Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Civil
Suit No. 04-A/2021 whereby application for divorce filed by
the appellant/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, "the Act of 1955") has
been granted and the Family Court has awarded
permanent alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/- in favour of the
respondent/wife along with monthly maintenance of
Rs. 6,000/- till her remarriage.
3. At the outset, Mr. Ravindra Sharma as well as Mr. K.K.
Pandey, learned counsel for the parties would submit that
so far as decree for divorce is concerned, both the parties
have accepted and agreed to it and they have only
questioned the impugned judgment and decree to the
extent of grant of permanent alimony and monthly
maintenance in favour of the respondent/wife.
4. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant/husband, would submit that once permanent
alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/- had been awarded in favour of
the respondent/wife, the Family Court then could not have
granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- in her favour
till her remarriage, as such, the impugned judgment and
decree to the extent of grant of monthly maintenance in
favour of the respondent/wife is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondent/wife, would submit that though the Family
Court has rightly granted permanent alimony as well as
monthly maintenance in favour of the respondent/wife,
however, the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- as permanent alimony
as well as the sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as
maintenance is rather on the lower side and both deserve
to be enhanced.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and went
through the record with utmost circumspection.
7. The question that arises for consideration herein is,
"whether the Family Court is justified in granting monthly
maintenance after having already granted permanent
alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/- in favour of the
respondent/wife ?"
8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the
provision contained under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1955,
which states 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, 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 change on the
immovable property of the respondent."
9. The aforesaid provision empowers the court to award for
the maintenance and support of the applicant a gross sum
or to direct monthly or other periodical payments to be
made by the respondent to the applicant. The matter is of
the discretion of the court and ordinarily, the court as well
as the parties prefer that the payments should be
periodical or a gross sum is generally awarded after
making an inquiry on such application filed under Section
25 of the Act of 1955, but periodical as well as gross sum,
both cannot be awarded at a time.
10. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Rakesh Malhotra v.
Krishna Malhotra1, has considered the question as to
"whether after grant of permanent alimony under Section
25 of the Act of 1955, a prayer can be made before the
Magistrate under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance,
over and above what has been granted by the Court while
exercising power under Section 25 of the Act of 1955" and
answered the said question in paragraph 7 of the report,
which provides as under :-
"7. At the stage of passing a decree for
dissolution of marriage, the court thus considers
not only the earning capacity of the respective
parties, the status of the parties as well as
various other issues. The determination so made
1 (2020) 14 SCC 150
by the court has an element of permanency
involved in the matter. However, Parliament has
designedly kept a window open in the form of
sub-sections (2) and (3) in that, in case there be
any change in circumstances, the aggrieved
party can approach the court under sub-section
(2) and (3) and ask for variation/modification.
Since the basic order was passed by the court
concerned under Section 25(1), by very nature,
the order of modification/variation can also be
passed by the court concerned exercising power
under Section 25(2) or 25(3) of the Act."
11. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the
aforesaid legal analysis, it is quite vivid that once the
Family Court had granted permanent alimony in favour of
the respondent/wife in exercise of power conferred under
Section 25(1) of the Act of 1955, it could not have further
granted monthly maintenance/periodical payment in her
favour. As has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme
Court in Rakesh Malhotra (supra), the Parliament has
empowered the Court under Section 25(2) of the Act of
1955 and kept a remedy intact and made available to the
party concerned seeking modification, the logical sequitur
would be that the remedy so prescribed ought to be
exercised rather than creating multiple channels of remedy
seeking maintenance and once question of permanent
alimony was considered under Section 25 of the Act of
1955 and it was granted by the Family Court, monthly
maintenance was not grantable in view of provision
contained under Section 25 of the Act of 1955. In that
view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that
the Family Court is absolutely unjustified in granting
monthly maintenance of Rs. 6000/- in favour of the
respondent/wife after having already granted permanent
alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/-. As such, the part of the
impugned judgment and decree awarding maintenance of
Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of the respondent/wife is
hereby set aside.
12. At this stage, the argument made by learned counsel for
the respondent/wife that the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-
awarded by the Family Court as permanent alimony is on
the lower side deserves to be noticed. A bare perusal of the
record would show that application for permanent alimony
was not filed by the respondent/wife and no inquiry was
made by the Family Court before passing the award of
permanent alimony. In that view of the matter, liberty is
reserved in favour of the respondent/wife to file application
for enhancement of the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- granted
by the Family Court as permanent alimony and if such an
application is filed by the respondent/wife, the Family
Court will consider all the facts and circumstances of the
case and make an inquiry in light of the decision rendered
by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh v. Neha2
and decide the said application within four months in
2 2020 SCC Online SC 903
accordance with law. It is made clear that so far as the
enhancement of amount of permanent alimony is
concerned, it will be considered by the Family Court
without being prejudiced by any observation made by this
Court herein-above.
13. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant/husband
submits that sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- has already been
deposited by the appellant/husband and as such,
respondent/wife is at liberty to withdraw the said amount.
14. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of in view of the
aforesaid observations/directions.
SD/- SD/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE JUDGE
Sd/-
Harneet
