Soumendu Ray vs Manasi Ray
2025 Latest Caselaw 1317 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Soumendu Ray vs Manasi Ray on 1 August, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar

                                                  2025:JHHC:21422-DB




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               F.A. No.159 of 2023
                         ----- -
Soumendu Ray, aged about 40 years, S/o Swapan Kumar
Ray, R/o Flat No.C3/6 ISWP Colony, Indra Nagar, PO+PS-
Telco, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
                    ...     ...        Appellant/Petitioner
                            Versus
Manasi Ray, Age about 32 years, W/o Sri Soumendu Ray
D/o Sri Tribhanga Nandi, Present Address : Qtr. No.ES/93B,
South Settlement Para, Railway Colony Adra, Dist.-Purulia,
West Bengal.
Permanent Address : Halsong Patpur, PO-Patpur, P.S._Onda,
Dist. Bankura, West Bengal.
                    ...     ...      Respondent/Opp.Party

                    PRESENT
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                          .....
For the Appellant  : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, Advocate
                        .....

C.A.V. on 07.07.2025           Pronounced on 01/08/2025

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the

legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on

16.12.2022 and decree signed on 22.12.2022 by learned

Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-1, East

Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the

Original Suit No.345 of 2017 filed by the plaintiff-appellant-

husband under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed.

Factual Matrix

2. The case of the appellant-husband, in brief as it can

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

be gathered from the plaint is that the respondent is the

legally married wife of the appellant and their marriage was

performed on 03.08.2012 according to Hindu rites and

customs at Adra, Dist. Purulia, West Bengal.

3. The respondent accompanied her husband on the

next day of their marriage to her matrimonial house where

the marriage ceremony was celebrated to live with him and

to lead their happy conjugal relationship. Thus, the

marriage between the parties was duly consummated.

4. Both parties stayed at Durgapur, only about a

month in between which the respondent had been to her

parents' house at Adra for a week and finally thereafter the

appellant-husband and the respondent-wife went to

Jamshedpur at appellant-husband's quarter and started to

lead their conjugal life.

5. After retirement from service, the father of the

appellant-husband settled at Durgapur with his wife. The

appellant-husband is the only son of his old parents, who

are suffering from various ailments. Unfortunately, the

respondent-wife was not at all willing to live at her in-law's

house even she does not like that her parents-in-law should

visit to their ISWP quarter at Jamshedpur at any point of

time. Thus, the parents of the appellant-husband used to

come occasionally very rare and came twice only and stayed

there total for three months but both the times the

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

respondent misbehaved with them. Even the respondent-

wife does not like off and on visit of appellant-husband to

his native place Durgapur to see his ailing and old aged

parents.

6. The cordial relationship of husband and wife could

not continue for longer period as mother and elder

unmarried sister of the respondent were maintaining their

regular visits to the house of the appellant-husband and

they were also putting regular interference in the affairs

between appellant-husband and his wife in all matters.

7. The respondent's mother and elder unmarried sister

insulted, humiliated and misbehaved several times not only

the appellant-husband but also his parents over phone and

even in front of the relatives and guests of the respondent.

8. The respondent neither showed any regard to any

superior members in her marital house nor the appellant-

husband except at the time of marketing. The respondent

used to quarrel with the appellant-husband on flimsy

grounds or baseless issues and threatened to implicate the

appellant-husband and his parents in false criminal cases

and give divorce.

9. The appellant-husband kept mum thinking that the

situation might be changed in future. But the respondent

day by day appeared as rude, obstinate, ill-tempered lady

and she used to refuse to render her matrimonial duties and

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

ethics towards the appellant-husband and his old parents.

10. In the meantime, due to the said wedlock the

respondent conceived at the ISWP quarter in Jamshedpur.

In the month of August 2013, when the respondent-wife was

three months pregnant, she went to her parents house at

Adra against the will and wishes of the appellant-husband

as the appellant-husband was interested to have his child

delivered at Jamshedpur where he has good and free

medical facility than Adra. However finally on 03.02.2014

the respondent was shifted to Bankura for better medical

facility where she gave birth to a female child named Adrisa

Ray.

11. From that time of birth till discharge from the

nursing home the appellant-husband stayed at Bankura to

maintain all required responsibilities both as a husband and

father of a new born baby. Thereafter, on several occasions,

the appellant-husband had been to his in-laws' house at

Adra to bring back the respondent with baby but all his

efforts went in vain. But from the very beginning the

appellant-husband bear all costs for baby regarding clothes,

foods, treatment. The appellant-husband was several times

abused and assaulted by his wife at his in-laws' quarter at

Adra. On 5th and 6th April 2014, the appellant-husband was

there at Adra for medical treatment of baby's feet. In

midnight at about 3.30 am the respondent started false

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

shouting that "Bapi, Maa, Didi, my husband pressed my

neck" hence by that noise, hue and cry his mother-in-law

entered into the room and started assaulting and abusing

the appellant-husband in filthy language.

12. Thereafter, to see the old parents of the appellant-

husband and to finalize the date of "Annaprasana" he had

been to Durgapur on 17.05.2014 and stayed till 21.05.2014

along with respondent and baby where the function was

supposed to be celebrated. During the said period also

respondent misbehaved with the appellant-husband and his

old parents by derogatory statements in presence of

neighbours and guests who had come to see the newly born

baby. The respondent never cares for the prestige of the

appellant-husband and his old parents. Even without

finalizing the date of Annaprasana of Adrisa the respondent

threatened that if she is not sent to Adra, she will commit

suicide or implicate them in false cases like rape, dowry etc.

Also, she made so many loose talks about character of

appellant-husband in filthy language. Having no alternative

the appellant-husband took the respondent to her parent's

house at Adra along with the baby on 22.05.2014 where

taking advantage of helpless position in presence of some

unidentified persons, he was confined to a room by his

mother-in-law & sister-in-law and not only abused but also

assaulted mercilessly and at that time father-in-law of the

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

appellant-husband was at Hyderabad for his official

training. The mother-in-law hit the appellant-husband by

her fists. Suddenly the appellant-husband got a chance to

abscond. Thereafter the appellant-husband returned to

Jamshedpur alone in heavily disgusted mind and got

medically treated for his injuries. The respondent, her

mother and unmarried sister never hesitated to abuse and

assault or never repent on their misbehaviour or mental and

physical torture with the appellant-husband. The appellant-

husband submitted written complaint against the

respondent's mother and unmarried elder sister for future

reference to lead a healthy and peaceful life ahead before the

District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand and served

the copy to a Human Rights association, Jamshedpur, GM

HR & Admn. of ISWPL, Telco P.S., Aurovinda P.S. Durgapur,

Kashipore P.S. Adra, Supdt. of Police Purulia, West Bengal.

Thereafter, on several attempts the appellant-husband tried

to bring back his wife and minor baby at Jamshedpur at

ISWP quarter but all the efforts went in vain and finding no

other way the appellant-husband preferred to file a case of

Matrimonial Suit No. 223 of 2014, u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage

Act, and ultimately at the intervention of their common well-

wishers and mainly maternal uncles and aunts of the

appellant-husband, the matter was amicably settled and the

respondent along with the minor baby were brought to the

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

quarter of the appellant-husband at Jamshedpur on

12.10.2014. Since then, the appellant-husband and

respondent started living as husband and wife. The

appellant-husband under anticipation that the respondent

will continue the conjugal right peacefully withdrew the said

matrimonial suit in the month of November 2014. Such

cordial relationship between the appellant-husband and the

respondent could not continue for any longer period as the

earlier ugly dispute of respondent reiterated by regular visit

to her parental house (Adra) at the instigation of her mother

and unmarried elder sister who also used to visit the house

of the appellant-husband.

13. In the meantime, the minor daughter of the

appellant-husband was taken to Kolkata for operating her

right feet on 07.04.2015 where parents of both appellant-

husband and respondent-wife visited to see their ailing

grandchild. Ultimately after treatment the respondent with

her just operated child came back to Jamshedpur with the

appellant-husband. The parents of the appellant-husband

also came with them but parents of the respondent returned

to their residence at Adra. But the normal peace and

tranquility in their mind was found seriously disturbed and

the respondent started picking up quarrels with the

appellant-husband and her parents-in-laws on baseless

issues. On 21.4.2015 the respondent openly disclosed that

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

she will give good lesson to the appellant-husband and his

parents by implicating them in various concocted criminal

cases. She also called her parents, elder sister and brother

intimating false situation. That again all of them reached at

appellant-husband's quarter and openly gave out threats to

the appellant-husband and his parents with dire

consequences. The appellant-husband tried his level best to

settle the matter at the intervention of their common well-

wishers, but all went in vain. Finally, the respondent left

Jamshedpur by her own wish around 10.00 pm along with

just operated ailing minor child and taken away all the gold

and diamond jewelries of both sides with earlier planning.

The respondent, her mother, father and elder unmarried

sister were implying wrong allegation to the close friends,

colleagues, relatives of appellant husband and did not

hesitate to wrongly blame about the character upon the

appellant-husband and his parents. Mother and unmarried

elders sister was giving threats over phone to the appellant-

husband and his parents, for which the appellant-husband

has got no courage to see his daughter. The respondent did

not return back to the house of the appellant-husband in

spite of repeated requests and several efforts made by the

appellant-husband. The appellant-husband apprehending

serious nature of offences, initiated an informatory petition

u/s 39 Cr.P.C. before the learned court of CJM. at

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

Jamshedpur which was registered as informatory petition

No. 472 of 2015 on 16.5.2015. Instead of trying to settle the

family matter by the respondent or return back with her

minor child within two months she preferred to initate a

case for grant of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the

J.M. at Bankura (West Bengal) registered as Misc. Case No.

56 of 2015. The appellant-husband appeared from the

starting and the respondent obtained an order for regular

maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month.

14. Accordingly, the appellant-husband is paying the

said sum to the respondent continuously. But the

respondent, her parents and elder unmarried sister

continued their atrocities towards petitioner. From filing the

case u/s 125 to till now the respondent with her parental

family members and unknown hooligans attacked several

times at the residence of the appellant-husband in

Jamshedpur, his office and Bankura court premises to

destroy his good reputation in the society and inside the

company. The appellant-husband was compelled to report

the matter to the Telco P.S., Bankura P.S. and Jamshedpur

City Dy.S.P. in writing separately which were received on

28.10.2015, 28.3.2016, 11.8.2016 respectively, but no

action has yet been taken by any concerned. Last two

incidents were remarkably pre-planned by the respondent

along with her mother, father, elder unmarried sister and

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

number of unknown hooligans attacked the appellant-

husband and his old aged parents at his ISWP quarter also

with the press reporter. The respondent gave illegal wrong

statement against the appellant-husband and his parents

which was published on local newspaper on 09.08.2016 to

destroy his social and official images. On 28.08.2016 the

respondent again attacked the appellant-husband at his

company quarter and started abusing in filthy language and

they openly gave out threats that unless the appellant-

husband make payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the

respondent, they will not allow the appellant-husband to live

peacefully rather they will take all possible steps to get the

appellant-husband terminated from his service. Ultimately a

complaint case was initiated against the respondent and

others which was registered as C/1 Case No. 2667 of 2016.

The appellant-husband has been deserted for a pretty long

period right from 21.04.2015. Apart from this, the appellant-

husband has been subjected with serious type of mental

and physical cruelty at the hands of the respondent in the

matter stated in the foregoing paragraphs. Thus the

appellant-husband found no alternative but to prefer this

application for dissolution of marriage through a decree of

divorce and hence this application.

15. Both the parties have lastly resided at the house of

the appellant-husband at Jamshedpur on 21.04.2015

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

within the jurisdiction of this court and thereafter there had

never been any opportunity to them to live together as

husband and wife at any place. In view of the above made

submissions it has been prayed for a decree of dissolution of

marriage solemnized on 03.08.2012.

16. Respondent appeared in this case and filed her

written statement denying the allegations levelled against

her in the petition.

17. Admitting the date of marriage, it is submitted that

the facts asserted about the unwillingness of respondent to

live at her in-laws' house and her dislike of the parents-in-

law visiting their quarter at Jamshedpur, has been made

with oblique motive to justify the cause of the petition

whereas the true state of fact is that appellant-husband's

mother lived with the respondent and committed torture on

her and in-spite of that respondent led their conjugal life

without any unwanted circumstances and in consequence

thereof the respondent gave birth to a female child suffering

from "Congenital Vertical Talus" disease since birth.

18. It has been stated that other allegations made

against the respondent are based on afterthought of the

appellant-husband. He never mentioned any specific time or

date of injury on the basis of which claim of the appellant-

husband can be said to be true.

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

19. It is further stated that when respondent became

pregnant then appellant-husband and his parents did not

provide proper food, medical treatment and treated her like

a maid servant who was neither allowed to go outside her

matrimonial house nor she was provided medical treatment

while she was seriously ill. After birth of female child the

appellant-husband always threatened the respondent that

she gave a female child and she is suffering from vertical

talus and appellant-husband never helped her in her

treatment then respondent came to Jamshedpur and

requested him to help female child but the appellant-

husband and his parents did not allow her to enter in the

house and closed the grill and made false allegations against

the respondent and her family members.

20. It is further stated that the facts asserted regarding

the filing of Matrimonial Suit No. 223/2014, u/s 9 of Hindu

Marriage Act, have been made by the appellant-husband

only to save his skin which is crystal clear from the order

sheet of Matrimonial Suit No. 223 of 2014. The respondent

never lodged the criminal cases against the appellant-

husband as she hoped the matter would get settled but from

the intention of the appellant-husband it is crystal clear that

appellant-husband lodged the false and fabricated case

against the respondent and her family members. The

appellant-husband without any sufficient cause voluntarily

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

thrown her out from his house on the other hand the

respondent is willing to restore and lead her conjugal life

with all the obligations of being a wife and therefore

appellant-husband has no cause of action to get any such

relief. It is therefore, prayed that the suit may kindly be

dismissed.

21. The case proceeded for evidence during which the

appellant has produced and examined three witnesses

including himself.

22. The respondent-wife has produced and examined

altogether three witnesses including herself.

23. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned

counsel for the parties, framed six issues for adjudication of

the lis, which were decided against the appellant-husband

and in favour of respondent-wife and decreed the suit on

contest in the following terms :

"39. So, from the above discussed evidence, facts and circumstances, I conclude that the essential ingredients of sec 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) H.M. Act have not been satisfied and the petitioner has not been able to establish his case of getting divorce from the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion, so he is not entitled for divorce U/s 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. And accordingly, it is hereby,

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

ORDERED

40. That the suit of the petitioner is dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost. Office to prepare the decree accordingly."

24. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the

judgment passed on 16.12.2022 and decree signed on

22.12.2022 by learned Additional Principal Judge,

Additional Family Court-1, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur

approached this Court by filing the instant appeal.

25. Although the appeal is against the denial of decree of

divorce but it appears from the order dated 11.06.2025 that

the parties have refused to live together as husband and wife

on the endeavour having been taken by this Court.

26. Such endeavour has been taken by this Court on the

principle that the efforts for reunion is to be taken first but if

the efforts of reunion is not found to be possible, then the

other possibility of settlement is to be considered.

27. The appellant-husband has expressed his wish that he

is not ready to keep the wife due to so may problems which

he has faced.

28. However, the wife has expressed her wish that so far as

her personal opinion is concerned, she is ready to live with

her husband but her daughter is not willing to live with her

father due to reason that he has never taken care of her

even though she was seriously ill and being treated by the

doctor.

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

29. The appellant-husband has submitted that he is ready

for separation on the settlement in terms of money.

30. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid fact, has

passed order on 11.06.2025 directing the learned counsel

for the appellant-husband to file affidavit giving details of

the salary/perks of the appellant-husband along with the

salary-slip as also the documents pertaining to his

immovable property. For ready reference, the order dated

11.06.2025 is being quoted hereunder as :-

"Order No.10/Dated: 11th June, 2025

1. Reference may be made to the order dated 1st May 2025.

2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that due to transfer of the appellant from Jamshedpur to Mumbai he could not be able to present in this Court.

3. The respondent-wife, namely, Manasi Ray is present in the Court along with her minor daughter, namely, Adrisa Ray aged about 11 years. She has submitted that so far as her personal opinion is concerned, she is ready to live with her husband but her daughter is not willing to live with her father due to reason that he has never taken care of her even through she was seriously ill and being treated by the doctor and to that effect the prescriptions have been shown to this Court. The respondent-wife has, therefore, submitted that in such a situation where the future of her daughter is at stake as she is not willing to live with her father and for that reason, she is also not willing to go against the wishes of her daughter and, hence, she does not want to live with her husband.

4. She has further stated that the appellant is working in a subsidiary company of TATA Steel Ltd.

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

and he is getting a handsome salary, approximately Rs.2.5 lakhs per month and, as such, a statement has been made that for the purpose of upbringing of the minor daughter, both for better education and treatment as also for the settlement upto the stage of her marriage and for her survival the appropriate amount, if will be paid, then she can come to the terms of separation.

5. The respondent-wife has further submitted that the appellant has not paid the maintenance amount and an arrear to the tune of Rs.74,000/- is still pending to be paid by the appellant. The respondent- wife has further submitted that she has to come from Adra and today she is hiring a vehicle to come to the Court by road and for this purpose, she has to bear an amount of Rs.10,000/- for to and fro journey.

6. Upon this, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has undertaken on behalf of the appellant to transmit the said amount in the account of the respondent-wife within a week. He has submitted that he will take instructions and file an affidavit in this regard stating therein the entire income of the appellant based upon his salary and other properties by appending the salary-slip which is being issued by the employer of the appellant and the documents pertaining to his immovable property.

7. The learned counsel has further submitted that in the affidavit specific statement regarding the amount paid to the respondent-wife for expenses of to and fro journey will also be mentioned. So far as the payment of arrear of maintenance amount is concerned, he has stated that he will take instructions from the appellant and if the said maintenance amount is still due, the same will be paid within a period of four weeks.

8. Let such affidavit be filed giving details of the salary/perks of the appellant-husband along with the

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

salary-slip as also the documents pertaining to his immovable property.

9. The parties are at liberty to appear in the Court through Virtual Mode for which the link will be provided by the Registry of this Court by intimating both the parties and their learned counsel.

10. Let this matter be posted on 26.06.2025."

31. The affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant-

husband annexing therewith the salary slip for the month of

May, 2025 showing the details of the salary which he is

earning since he is working as Assistant General Manager in

Tata Steel Limited. The salary slip refers projected income

tax wherein the annual income from salary has been shown

to the tune of Rs.20,26,422/- out of which income tax to the

tune of Rs.2,14,870/- is to be deducted.

32. The appellant is also having a house at Durgapur town

taken on long term lease from Durgapur Steel Plant,

however, in the name of his father as has been stated in the

said affidavit.

33. The respondent-wife has submitted that the daughter

is suffering from "Congenital Vertical Talus" disease for

which the treatment is going on for which she is facing great

hardship, both monetarily and lack of medical facilities in

the town where she is now residing, i.e., Bankura, in the

district of Burdwan, having no advance medical facility for

the expert treatment which is required for the daughter.

34. She, therefore, has stated that since the appellant

husband is not ready to live and he wants divorce, as such,

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

she has shown her willingness based upon her requirement

and the needs of her daughter for maintaining her, studies

and the treatment.

35. Upon this, the appellant-husband has stated before

this Court that he is ready to make payment of Rs.40 lacs in

favour of the respondent-wife and Rs.10 lacs for the

daughter to be deposited in the long term deposit plan in

any bank which shall be under the guardianship of the

respondent-wife.

36. The respondent-wife has stated that although the

amount agreed to be paid by the appellant-husband cannot

be said to be sufficient one but since she is in dire need of

money for her survival and the wellbeing of her daughter, as

such, she is accepting the said offer.

37. She has further stated that the amount of maintenance

which has been directed to be paid in favour of the daughter

to the tune of Rs.6,000/- may be enhanced with a direction

to be paid by the appellant-husband towards his daughter

positively by 10th of each month.

38. She has also stated that since her daughter requires

better treatment and the appellant-husband is having the

residential house, although on long term lease, hence it

would be just and proper for the welfare of the daughter for

whom the accountability also lies with the appellant-

husband until she attains her majority and have a proper

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

settlement either by way of getting a job or by solemnization

of her marriage. Otherwise, she will face difficulty in getting

proper treatment due to want of any residential

accommodation in the district of Durgapur which is nearer

to the place where now she is living and where there is

better facilities at least for the medical treatment of her

daughter as also for her good studies.

39. This Court has considered the statements which have

been made by the parties themselves.

40. The decree of divorce has been refused to be granted,

but this Court, taking into consideration the fact that there

is no possibility of reconciliation on the issue of reunion,

hence, has though it proper to accept the agreement which

has been arrived at in between the parties.

41. So far, the lump sum amount of Rs.50 lacs (Rs.40 lacs

to the respondent-wife and Rs.10 lacs to the daughter) is

concerned, this Court is of the view that the matter, in terms

of the said settlement, is required to be closed by modifying

the decree passed by the learned Family Judge by granting

decree of divorce in between the parties. However, subject to

the following conditions:-

(i) Rs. 40 lacs are to be paid by the appellant-husband in

favour of the respondent wife.

(ii) Rs.40 lacs, as has been agreed by the appellant-

husband, shall be paid in four installments, by way of

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

demand draft, within a maximum period of four months

from today.

(iii) The first installment of Rs.10 lacs is to be paid by 15th

August, 2025 through demand draft in the name of

Manasi Ray, the respondent-wife.

(iv) Thereafter, rest Rs.30 lacs shall be paid in three equal

installments within maximum period of three months

from 15th August, 2025.

(v) Rs.10 lacs, as agreed to be paid in favour of the

daughter, will be transmitted in the bank account of the

respondent-wife within a period of 15 days from the

date of order. The respondent wife, immediately after

receipt of the said amount, shall deposit the same in the

long-term deposit scheme in any of the nationalized

bank, in the name of the daughter under the

guardianship of the mother, the respondent-wife herein.

Issue of maintenance of the daughter

42. This Court is dealing with the issue of dissolution of

marriage in between the husband and the wife under the

provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

43. The agreement which has been arrived, as referred

hereinabove, if for dissolution of marriage in between the

appellant and the respondent, the interest of the female

child (daughter) is also subject matter for consideration out

of the wedlock of the husband and wife, will suffer due to

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

the effect of dissolution of marriage. Therefore, the question

of welfare of kids, herein the female child, is required to be

considered.

44. The aforesaid aspect of the matter is also necessary to

be looked into by this Court since the age of the female child

is 11 years only and she is suffering from "Congenital

Vertical Talus" disease. However, the maintenance amount

for daughter has been granted by the concerned Family

Court which is being paid by the father to the tune of

Rs.6000/- per month.

45. The father-appellant has admitted before this Court

that there cannot be any separation from the daughter,

rather, he is duty bound to maintain his daughter, in

addition to the amount of Rs.10 lacs which has been agreed

to be paid for her future avenues.

46. This Court, considering the aforesaid admission on the

part of the appellant-husband, is now proceeding to

consider whether the amount of Rs.6,000/- per month can

be said to be just and proper for the welfare of the daughter,

for her study, treatment and other miscellaneous

expenditure which a female child requires.

47. The salary of the appellant, as per the salary slip is

Rs.1,34,995/- gross approximately per month. He is working

in the capacity of Senior Area Manager in Tata Steel Wire,

Division . The appellant being the father, has got every duty

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

to nourish, maintain and to discharge his accountability so

as to bring his daughter to a responsible position in the

society.

48. Since the child has taken birth from the wedlock of the

wife and husband is not to be separated, hence, the father

has every obligation upon the child to maintain. As per the

learned Counsel the amount of Rs.6000/- per month is

being paid to child.

49. The Court is to consider as to whether the said amount

of Rs.6000/- can be said to be commensurate with the

requirement of a female child who, at the time of awarding

the said amount was aged about 5/6 years and now aged

about 11 years.

50. We all know that a kid, particularly a female child, is in

requirement of financial means for her study, upbringing,

higher studies and solemnization of marriage. The amount

of Rs.6000/- per month, therefore, cannot be said to be

commensurate with the said requirement, particularly in a

case where the appellant is getting salary of approximately

Rs.1,35,000/- per month, reference in this regard be made

to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan [2025 SCC

OnLine SC1259].

51. This Court has considered the factual aspect of the

said case i.e. Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

Sadhukhan(supra) and on perusal of the fact, referred

therein, it is evident that the appellant-wife and respondent-

husband were married on 18.06.1997. A son was born to

them on 05.08.1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband

filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of

the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of

marriage on the ground of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the

appellant-wife. Subsequently, the appellant-wife filed Misc.

Case No. 155 of 2008 in the same suit under Section 24 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance

for herself and the minor son. The Trial Court, by order

dated 14.01.2010, awarded interim maintenance of Rs.

8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 10,000/-

towards litigation expenses. The appellant-wife then

instituted Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of

the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial

Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the

respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per

month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to

the minor son, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation

costs. The Trial Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016,

dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that the 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

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

appellant-wife filed CAN No. 4505 of 2025 seeking interim

maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- for herself and Rs. 20,000/- for

the son, along with Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation

expenses. The High Court, by order dated 14.05.2015,

directed the respondent-husband to pay interim

maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Subsequently, by

order dated 14.07.2016, the High Court noted that the

respondent-husband was drawing a net monthly salary of

Rs. 69,000/- and enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs.

20,000/- per month. Finally, the High Court, by the

impugned order dated 25.06.2019, allowed the respondent's

appeal, granted a decree of divorce on the ground of mental

cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and

directed the respondent-husband to redeem the mortgage on

the flat where the appellant-wife was residing and transfer

the title deed to her name by 31.08.2019; allow the

appellant-wife and their son to continue residing in the said

flat; and continue to pay permanent alimony of Rs.

20,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, subject to a 5%

increase every three years. Additionally, the High Court

directed payment of educational expenses for the son's

university education and Rs. 5,000/- per month for private

tuition.

52. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the

appellant-wife is approached the Hon'ble Apex Court.

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

53. 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.

54. The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs.

20,000/- per month, which the High Court made final, was

originally awarded as interim maintenance. She submits

that the respondent-husband has a monthly income of

approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- and the quantum of alimony

awarded is not commensurate with the standard of living

maintained by the parties during the marriage.

55. 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-

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

husband contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no

longer financially dependent.

56. 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

living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole

means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the

amount.

57. 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

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

been clarified that that the son's right to inheritance

remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other

property may be pursued in accordance with law.

58. 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 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

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

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."

59. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that 30% of

the salary of the appellant of the said case was awarded to

be paid in favour of the wife. However, no alimony was

directed to be paid in favour of the son since he was 26

years of age but the Hon'ble Apex Court has made an

observation that giving monetary aid to the said son is being

left open upon the father.

60. Here, in the instant case, the daughter is aged about

11 years. 30% of Rs.1,35000/- is required to be assessed by

this Court on the basis of the consideration made by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case which comes to

nearabout Rs.45,000/- but this Court is not awarding the

amount by enhancing it from Rs.6000/- to Rs.45,000/- due

to the reason that lump sum amount of Rs.50 lacs is to be

paid by the appellant in favour of the respondent-wife which

also includes Rs.10 lacs for the welfare of the daughter.

61. Hence, we considering the fact that the appellant is

also not to be overburdened, are of the view that the amount

of Rs.6,000/- per month cannot be said to be a just and

proper amount, rather, the same is required to be enhanced

to Rs.20,000/- per month which shall be paid to the

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

account of the respondent (mother of the daughter) by 10th

of each month.

62. The said arrangement of depositing the amount in the

account of the respondent (mother of the daughter) will be

till attaining the majority of the daughter and, thereafter, the

said amount will be deposited directly in the account of the

daughter which shall be opened by her mother after the

daughter attains majority.

63. The Rs.20,000/- will be enhanced to the extent of 5%

after every two years.

64. The statement which has been made by the respondent

regarding the issue of residential accommodation for the

purpose of imparting higher studies which is not available in

Bankura, rather, available in Durgapur as also for the

medical treatment of her daughter who requires it on daily

basis, i.e., physiotherapy and all types of expert treatment.

65. This Court, considering that the daughter is facing

medical difficulty of "Congenital Vertical Talus" disease, is of

the view that what is being said by the respondent cannot be

disagreed to, reason being that the Durgapur Township is

having better medical facility being the steel town, industrial

in nature, as has been told by the learned counsel for the

parties and, as such, this aspect of the matter cannot be

ignored by this Court, otherwise, the same will lead to

irreparable loss to the wellbeing of the daughter, so far as

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

study and specially the treatment which is required to

strengthen the daughter physically.

66. The respondent, being a lady, if will not be allowed to

live in the house situated in Durgapur Township, then it will

not be practicable for the respondent-wife to carry her

daughter alone for getting her treated in Durgapur.

67. The father, appellant herein, cannot be allowed to shift

his accountability/responsibility towards his daughter,

which he is required to do as a father, in the garb of getting

divorce from the respondent-wife.

68. The father, being the natural guardian, has got every

responsibility till the minor attains majority or minor being

settled. This is more important so far as the female child is

concerned.

69. The fact about having residential house in Durgapur is

admitted one as per the affidavit dated 03.07.2025.

However, it has been stated therein that the said house is on

long term lease. The respondent is not willing to have the

said accommodation forever, rather, what she has expressed

is not for a permanent period, rather, up till the settlement

of the daughter. Even considering the aforesaid fact that the

respondent is not willing to have the residential

accommodation till the subsistence of the lease or any right

over the property both the property of the father and the

ancestral property but the right of the daughter cannot be

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

separable merely because the divorce has been granted by

separating the mother and father, rather, the right to inherit

the property will always be there in favour of the son(s) or

the daughter(s), as the case may be, under the provisions of

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

70. This Court, therefore, is of the view, considering the

issue which the daughter is facing and for getting treatment

of the daughter the respondent will also have the practical

difficulties, hence, the right to live in the residential house at

Durgapur is required to be there.

71. This Court, in view of the above, is of the view that

whenever the respondent will show her desire to have the

keys of the house being 6/39, Kanishka Road of SAIL

Township at Durgapur to the appellant, the keys of the said

quarter or the vacant possession of the said quarter shall be

handed over in her favour for the aforesaid purpose.

However, the said occupation will be till the period of

settlement or solemnization of the marriage of the daughter

making it clear that does not construe of extinguishment of

the right of inheritance of the daughter over the property of

his father or the ancestral property.

72. The respondent has also stated that one account has

been opened under the Sukanya Samriddhi Scheme for

which Rs.20,000/- has been deposited. But the passbook of

the said account is lying with the appellant, hence, he may

2025:JHHC:21422-DB

be directed to return the said passbook for the purpose of

continuing the said scheme which will be beneficial for her

daughter in future.

73. Upon this, the appellant has undertaken before this

Court that the passbook of Sukanya Samriddhi Scheme

shall be handed over to his counsel Mr. Sanjay Kumar

Thakur within ten days, who after receiving the same, shall

handover to Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel

for the respondent, who will handover the same to the

respondent immediately.

74. This Court further needs to refer herein that in case

any of the order will not be adhered to by the appellant, the

respondent will be at liberty to make appropriate application

before this Court.

75. With these observations and directions, the instant

appeal is allowed.

76. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands

disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I agree.

       (Rajesh Kumar, J.)                  (Rajesh Kumar, J.)



Birendra /   A.F.R.