Jharkhand High Court
Soumendu Ray vs Manasi Ray on 26 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 159 of 2023
----
Soumendu Ray ... ... Appellant
Versus
Manasi Ray ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM :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. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate
--------
th
Order No. 11 : Dated 26 June, 2025
1. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that in pursuance to order dated
11th June, 2025, the affidavit is ready to be filed, after serving
copy upon learned counsel for the respondent, but could not
be filed. Therefore, prayer has been made to accept the
affidavit.
2. Consider the submission advanced by learned counsel
for the appellant, the affidavit is accepted to be taken on
record.
3. We have perused the affidavit dated 26.06.2025 filed on
behalf of appellant.
4. In the affidavit, it has been stated that initially Rs.
10,000/- was fixed as maintenance, which on being
challenged by the respondent-wife was enhanced by the
learned court to the tune of Rs. 14,000/- per month. The
appellant-husband being aggrieved thereof challenge the
same before the Kolkata High Court, which was dismissed.
Pursuant thereto, learned 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Bankura directed vide order 24th February, 2023 to clear the
arrear by giving Rs. 4000 to Rs. 5000/- per month in addition
to Rs. 14,000/- as fixed as maintenance and since then the
appellant-husband is paying Rs. 20,000/- per month.
5. A serious objection is being raised by the respondent-
wife, who is present in the court, stating that even Rs.
14,000/- which has been directed to be paid by way of
maintenance by the learned court is not being paid on
regular basis.
6. It is evident from the affidavit filed on behalf of the
appellant-husband that since he did not pay the maintenance
on regular basis as such arrear of maintenance has been
made to the tune of Rs. 74,000/-.
7. The attitude of the appellant-husband cannot be
appreciated for the reason that when the Court has passed
the order to pay maintenance on month to month basis by
10th of every month it must be paid before that date but as
per the statement made by the respondent-wife, who is
present in the Court, the maintenance is not being paid on
month to month basis. The said conduct of the employee
cannot be said to be in consonance with the statutory
command as provided under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
8. This Court, considering the aforesaid approach and
conduct of the appellant-husband, is of the view that if the
maintenance amount as ordered by the learned trial court is
not paid by 10th of every month, as directed by the learned
trial court, liberty is reserved with the respondent-wife to
make application directly to the employer of the appellant i.e.,
Managing Director, Tata Steel Limited, containing the details
of the bank accounts regarding such discontinuation of
maintenance along with copy of this order for disbursement
of the said amount directly in her bank account.
9. If such situation arises and the employer will receive
information of non-disbursement of the amount, as directed
above, the amount of maintenance, as directed by the Court,
shall directly be transmitted to the account of the appellant-
wife.
10. This Court hope and trust that in such circumstances
the employer i.e., the Managing Director, Tata Steel Limited
will respond positively.
11. This Court further hope and trust that the respondent-
husband will not invite such situation and will abide by the
direction so passed by this Court for maintenance in favour
of respondent-wife and her daughter.
12. So far as the issue of permanent alimony is concerned,
as per order dated 11th June, 2025, the appellant-husband
has filed affidavit annexing therewith the copy of salary slip
wherefrom it is evident that he is getting home take salary of
Rs. 1,34,995 [After PF contribution, VPF Contribution,
Professional Tax, Income Tax, LIC deductions etc. to the tune
of Rs. 99,419/-].
13. Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the
respondent-wife has relied upon a judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs.
Raja Sadhukhan[2025 SCC OnLine SC1259], wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court by taking into consideration the monthly
income of the husband to be Rs. 1,64,039/- has modified the
order passed by the High Court 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 in order to meet out the effect of inflation. The son, who
has attained the age of 26 years and as such no order was
passed for permanent alimony in his favour.
14. Relying upon the Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja
Sadhukhan (supra), submission has been made by learned
counsel for the respondent-wife that herein the respondent-
wife has no source of income and a daughter, having age of 5-
6 years living with mother, is suffering from vertical talus, for
which they have to totally depend upon the maintenance
given by the appellant-husband.
15. The deformity in leg/ailment i.e. vertical talus of the
daughter is being admitted by learned counsel for the
appellant-husband.
16. The respondent-wife, who is present in the Court has
submitted that she is having no personal accommodation and
as of now she is living in Adra for the purpose of education of
her daughter but there she is facing hardship in getting
medical treatment of her daughter. She has stated that her
husband has personal accommodation/flat at Durgapur but
she has no document available with her. Submission
therefore has been made that the document pertaining to the
residential house in the district of Durgapur in the State of
West Bengal may be placed on record.
17. This Court in the aforesaid background has put a
question to learned counsel for the appellant as to why the
details of moveable/immovable property has not been
mentioned in the affidavit filed by the appellant-husband as
per law laid down in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.
(2021) 2 SCC 324.
18. Upon this, submission has been made by learned
counsel for the appellant-husband that he has no instruction
with respect to the immovable/immovable property, as such
it could not be brought on record.
19. In view thereof, the appellant-husband is directed to
bring on record the true disclosure of moveable/immovable
property by filing affidavit on or before the next date of
hearing.
20. List this case on 3rd July, 2025 within top five cases.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Alankar/ Samarth/-
