Devyani Kamal Pratap @ Devyani vs Kamal Pratap
2025 Latest Caselaw 6453 Jhar

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6453 Jhar
Judgement Date : 14 October, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Devyani Kamal Pratap @ Devyani vs Kamal Pratap on 14 October, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 F.A. No. 247 of 2024
                                    ------

Devyani Kamal Pratap @ Devyani ... Appellant Versus Kamal Pratap ... Respondent with F.A. No. 05 of 2025

Kamal Pratap ... Appellant Versus Devyani Kamal Pratap ... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, Advocate : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate

------

06/Dated: 14 October, 2025 th

I.A. No. 13002 of 2024:

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 03 days in preferring the

instant appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in the

interlocutory application, the delay of 03 days in preferring the

appeal is hereby condoned.

4. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 13002 of 2024 stands allowed, as such,

disposed of.

F.A. No. 247 of 2024 & F.A. No. 05 of 2025:

1. The record has already been called for.

2. The matter has been sent in the mediation drive vide order dated 11th

July, 2025. As per the mediation report, which is being available on

record, the mediation could not be succeeded rather it remained as

non-starter.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in First Appeal No.

247 of 2024 preferred by the wife, has submitted that there is no

chance of re-union since, the respondent husband has already

solemnized marriage. Therefore, submission has been made that the

issue of alimony is required to be adjudicated, since the same is in

the lower side taking into consideration the status of the respondent

husband, who is a software engineer and is having a handsome

monthly salary.

4. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant in First

Appeal No. 5 of 2025, who is respondent in First Appeal No. 247 of

2024, has submitted that the appeal preferred by him is only with

respect to the quantum of the permanent alimony, since it is in the

higher side.

5. Submission has also been made that nothing has been discussed

while passing the order of permanent alimony as would be evident

from the bare perusal of the impugned order.

6. The first appeal being F.A. No. 05 of 2025 has been admitted for

hearing, hence the appeal being F.A. No. 247 of 2024 is also been

admitted.

7. Since the issue of permanent alimony is only to be adjudicated, this

Court is of the view that both the parties are required to file the

affidavit in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Rajnesh V. Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.

8. So far as the husband is concerned, he is required to file the affidavit

along with other details and the salary slip of the establishment where

he is working.