Jharkhand High Court
Vandana Kumari vs Greesh Babu Mathur on 4 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 230 of 2019
Vandana Kumari, Aged about 38 years, W/o-Greesh Babu
Mathur, D/o- Bharat Singh, R/o-2/512 Mohalla Suhag
Nagar, P.O. -Firozabad, P.S. -Thana South, District -
Firozabad (Uttar Pradesh).
...Defendant/Respondent/Appellant
Versus
Greesh Babu Mathur, Aged about 42 years, S/o-Ram
Singh, Present R/o-Rly. Quarters No. 314 „c‟ First Floor in
Railway Colony at E.C.R. Barwadih, P.O. + P.S.-Barwadih,
Dist-Latehar.
Permanent R/o-Village Rakhwali, P.O. + P.S.-Fariha,
District-Firozabad (Uttar Pradesh)
...Plaintiff/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo, Advocate
Ms. Shourya Dwivedi, Advocate
Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate
Ms. Oishi Das, Advocate
-------------------
CAV/Reserved on 19.08.2025 Pronounced on 04/09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court
Act, 1984 is directed against order/judgment dated
11.05.2018 and decree dated 23.05.2018 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, A/C Latehar in
Original Suit No. 13 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the
learned court has allowed the suit which has been preferred
by the husband/respondent for dissolution of marriage.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
Brief facts of the case:
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the
original suit, needs to be referred herein reads, which reads
as under:
3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on
25.11.2007 according to the Hindu rituals and after
performance of the marriage, the appellant-wife came to her
marriage house.
4. The marriage between the parties was consummated and
during consummation of marriage, parties were blessed with
two daughters, the eldest born in the 2008 and the youngest
born in the year 2013. It is stated that the parties lived as
husband and wife till September, 2012 either in village
Rakhwali, P.S. Fariha, District-Firojabad, U.P. or have
resided lastly at railway quarter no. 314 "c" at first floor,
Barwadih, District- Latehar.
5. The respondent-husband is a Loco Pilot (Electric) and later
on promoted to the post of Chief Loco Inspector, Traction
and posted at ECR, Barwadih under Divisional Manager,
Dhanbad. Whereas after marriage, the appellant-wife got
teachers‟ training from April, 2008 to September, 2008 and
after successful completion of the training she joined the
Govt. job as Assistant teacher in Uchch Prathmik Vidyalaya
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
at village Gadi, Chhatrapati (Panchawan), P.O. Pachwan,
P.S. Narki, District-Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh.
6. It is case of the respondent-husband before the Family Court
that he is the only son of his parents and he hardly gets
leave to visit his native place, but the appellant-wife never
cared to look after his parents, nor interested to know about
them although the place of posting of the respondent is
within 10 km from the parental house of the respondent-
husband.
7. It is further case of the respondent-husband that the
appellant-wife, after return from Barwadih on 23.10.2012,
completely changed herself and was not intending even to
talk with him and refused to live with him in future as wife
without showing any reason.
8. It has further been stated that though the respondent-
husband, on 19.01.2013 went to the parental house of his
wife for her Bidayee, but she refused to return to her in-laws
house and also refused to share bed with him, which caused
utter humiliation and cruelty to the respondent-husband
resulting into a deserted life.
9. On seeing the conduct of the appellant-wife, the
respondent-husband returned on the same day. Again on
14.04.2013, the respondent-husband [the petitioner in the
suit] along with his father and near relatives went to the
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
parental house of the appellant-wife for her Bidayee and to
know the reasons for refusal, but the appellant-wife refused
without any reason and in spite of the humble approach to
convince her, the sincere effort went in vain. The appellant-
wife and her parents conceded that it is refusal forever and
now there cannot be any marital life between them.
10. It is stated that though both were living separately since
more than two years and seeing the intention of the
appellant-wife the respondent-husband ultimately sent a
legal notice dated 13.01.2016 either to restore the relation or
dissolve the marriage.
11. But the appellant-wife instead of showing to restore the
relation send reply dated 29.01.2016 and claimed huge
amount of gold and silver which allegedly was given at the
time of Supurdagi to her as dowry and stridhan.
12. The said reply was admitted to be refusal on behalf of the
appellant-wife. She had also threatened to send a copy of the
notice to the D.R.M, East Central Railway. The said conduct
of the appellant-wife caused mental cruelty and distress. In
spite of the said reply by the appellant-wife he again
approached the appellant-wife for her Bidayee on 13.02.16
which again was refused. It has been submitted that
sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant-wife to
continue the marital tie which is dead since 23.10.2012.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
13. It had been submitted before the family Court that since the
last four years of the filing of the suit, the parties are living
separately and there is no likelihood of any resumption and
the appellant-wife is not intending to carry over the marital
life with the respondent-husband, rather is drifting from the
life of the petitioner.
14. Thus, in view of the alleged cruelty and desertion the
respondent-husband had filed suit being Original Suit No.
13 of 2017.
15. In the suit, notice was sent to the appellant-wife, through
Nazarat as also by Post. The service report of Nazarat was
not received. However, the learned family court has found
that the notice sent to Registered post on 15.07.17 is said to
have been delivered, according to the tracking report filed by
the petitioner with party list dated 29.08.17, and the
tracking report generated through the website of India Post
show that the article was delivered on 24.07.2017.
Considering the same, the service was accepted on
29.08.2017.
16. Accordingly, the matter was heard ex-parte.
17. The respondent-husband examined himself as P.W. 1, who
reiterated the same thing. P.W. 2, Khurshid Alam Ansari,
has drafted the Advocate Notice.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
18. The learned family Court on the basis of pleadings available
on record, passed ex-parte order -"that the marriage between
the parties is dissolved herewith. Now onwards the parties
will not be called respective spouses of either and all the
marital ties between them is broken down finally. However, it
is made clear that the respondent has not appeared to file her
pleadings or there is any application for maintenance or
permanent alimony nor there is any application u/s 26 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 regarding custody of children's.
Thus, this court has not observed anything and that part is
always open for its consideration in case such petition is filed
by the parties. Let a decree accordingly be prepared, and a
free copy of Decree be handed over to the party."
19. The appellant-wife, being aggrieved with the ex-parte order
and decree of divorce passed by the learned Family Court
approached this Court by filing instant appeal.
20. On being noticed, the respondent-husband appeared.
21. With the consent of parties, the matter was sent before
JHALSA for amicable settlement of matrimonial dispute and
date was fixed for such mediation on 9th March, 2021
between 10.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., as would be evident from
order dated 01.03.2021.
22. But the mediation failed, report of which has been submitted
before this Court vide letter dated 04.06.2021, as would be
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
evident from order dated 24.06.2021. Accordingly, the
matter was placed for hearing. Thereafter the matter was
again placed before the Bench.
23. On 28.08.2024, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in
order to make one more effort for amicable settlement
directed both the parties to remain present in the Court for
mediation on the next date of hearing fixing the date on
23.09.2024.
24. On 23.09.2024, the appellant-wife was physically present in
the Court for settlement. But submission was made by
learned counsel for the respondent that the husband is not
ready to keep his wife however is ready for final settlement.
The Co-ordinate Bench, taking into consideration the
averment of the respondent-husband, directed the parties to
come with proposal for final settlement. For ready reference,
order dated 23rd September, 2024 is being quoted as under:
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant-wife is physically present in the Court.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent husband that he is not willing to keep
his wife but is ready for final settlement.
4. The counsel for the parties is directed to utilize their
good offices and come with proposal for final settlement.
5. Put up this case on 17th October, 2024."
25. Thereafter, when the matter was heard on 4th April,
2025, Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
appellant-wife, on instruction, has submitted that the
appellant is ready for a onetime settlement if a permanent
alimony of Rs. 50 Lakhs be extended to her as she has to
marry off two daughters and spend a considerable amount
on their education.
26. Upon this, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-husband has submitted that he has to take
instruction as to what amount the appellant will be able to
afford as one time settlement in order to get the marriage
finally dissolved. For ready reference, order dated 4th April,
2025 is being quoted as under:
"Mr. L.C.N. Shadeo, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant on instruction in terms of the order dated
11.02.2025 has submitted that the appellant is ready
for a onetime settlement if a permanent alimony of
Rs. 50 Lakhs be extended to her as she has to
marry off two daughters and spend a considerable
amount on their education.
Ms. Oishi Das, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent on being confronted with such offer has
submitted that she has to take instruction as to what
amount the appellant will be able to afford as one time
settlement in order to get the marriage finally dissolved.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, let this case
be listed on 06.05.2025 under the heading „For
Orders‟."
27. When the matter was taken up on 7th May, 2025,
learned counsel for both the parties has submitted that the
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
party in person want to appear, accordingly, the matter was
adjourned to be listed on 19th June, 2025.
28. On 19th June, 2025, the respondent-husband
appeared before this Court and prayed for time to apprise
this Court regarding the mode of payment on the issue of
„One Time Settlement‟. He agreed that he has to take care of
his two daughters, who are aged about seventeen and twelve
years respectively. Considering the same, the matter was
adjourned to be listed on 25.06.2025 and respondent-
husband was directed to remain physically present on the
next date of hearing. For ready reference, relevant portion of
order dated 19th June, 2025 is quoted as under:
"The respondent-husband is present before
this Court, who has prayed for few days to apprise
the Court regarding the mode of payment on the
issue of 'One Time Settlement'. He has agreed that
he has to take care of his two daughters, who are
aged about seventeen and twelve years
respectively.
3. Considering the same, let this matter be listed
on 25.06.2025, on which date, the respondent-husband
shall remain physically present before this Court."
29. But, on 25.06.2025, a medical prescription was
produced showing therein that the respondent-husband
sustained injury, as such he could not come to Ranchi.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
30. Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel for the
appellant-wife has submitted that appellant-wife is an
Assistant Teacher in the Govt. School but the appellant is
contesting this case for the purpose of alimony of her two
daughters, aged about 17 and 12 years respectively.
31. This Court, before considering the aforesaid issue,
is of the view that the affidavits on behalf of both the parties,
in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
the case of Rajnesh Vrs. Neha & Anr., reported in [(2021) 2
SCC 324] is required to be filed stating therein regarding
entire income and assets, movable and immovable for the
purpose of consideration of issue of alimony. For ready
reference, the order dated 25.06.2025 is quoted as under:
"Reference may be made to the order dated
19.06.2025, from which, it is evident that the Court has
heard on the issue of One Time Settlement for
upbringing of the Children and the expenditure
which will incur in their study and marriage.
2. Admittedly herein, the respondent husband is
working as Chief Loco Inspector in the Indian Railway
posted at ECR, Barwadih under Divisional Manager,
Dhanbad.
3. The respondent husband was directed to present
physically before this Court today.
4. The copy of the medical prescription issued by the
Barwadih Railway Health Unit has been produced
showing therein that the respondent husband has
sustained injury today itself and as such, he is not in a
position to come to Ranchi.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
5. Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel for the
respondent wife has submitted that appellant wife
is an Assistant Teacher in the Govt. School but the
appellant is contesting this case for the purpose of
alimony of two daughters, namely, Samiksha and
Mini aged about 17 and 12 years respectively.
6. This Court, before considering the aforesaid
issue, is of the view that the affidavits on behalf
of both the parties, in terms of judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh
Vrs. Neha & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324
stating therein regarding entire income and
assets, movable and immovable for the purpose of
consideration of issue of alimony.
7. Let such affidavit be filed within a week.
8. Let this matter be listed on 4th July, 2025.
9.Personal appearance of the respondent husband is,
hereby, dispensed with."
32. In terms thereof, affidavit has been filed by the
parties in the light of judgment passed in Rajnesh Vrs.
Neha & Anr. (supra) and the matter has been heard on the
issue of „permanent alimony‟ to meet the expense towards
the education and marriage etc. of two daughters of the
parties, who are presently living with her mother.
Submission on behalf of appellant-wife:
33. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has
submitted that the respondent-husband has obtained ex-
parte decree of divorce behind her back and immediately
thereafter has contracted second marriage, which itself
shows the conduct and intention of the respondent-
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
husband, therefore, now there is no chance of re-union.
Therefore, the appellant only confines his prayer with
respect to well-being of her two daughters, which are
admittedly borne out of the wedlock of appellant and
respondent.
34. Submission has been made that admittedly the
appellant-wife is working as Government teacher under the
State of Uttar Pradesh and her net income is approx.
85,000/- per month whereas the respondent-husband is
working in Indian Railway as Chief Loco Inspector, Traction,
which is having much higher pay and allowances.
35. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has
submitted that this Court vide order dated 25.06.2025, in
view of judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case
of Rajnesh Vrs. Neha & Anr. (supra), directed both the
parties to file affidavit stating therein regarding entire
income and assets, movable and immovable for the purpose
of consideration of issue of alimony. Pursuant thereto, the
affidavits have been filed by parties but the respondent-
husband in his affidavit neither made any averment
regarding his net salary nor enclosed his salary slip to
disclose his salary only in order to shirk from his
responsibility of paying alimony towards his daughters.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
36. Further submission has been made that admittedly,
the obligation of both the parents is to provide maintenance
for their child‟s needs and ensure their well-being,
irrespective of the separation or decree of divorce. Herein
both the daughters are in the custody of mother and the
respondent-father has never made any effort to have custody
of their daughters, as he always wants to get rid of them but
admittedly since the daughters are borne out of the wedlock
of both the parties, as such it is also duty of the father, the
non-custodial parent herein, to contribute the child‟s
financial support at par with the father‟s income, status,
need and their pre-separation life-style.
37. Submission has been made that herein since the
children are girl, as such besides expenses towards
education, higher studies, medical care there will be huge
expense on their marriage since the daughters are living
with their mother, who is now divorced, as such there would
be great difficulty in getting them married and in that
situation if there would be insufficiency of monetary support
it would be very difficult for the appellant-wife to get them
married in a society of their level at least.
38. Learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of
aforesaid submission has submitted that for both the
daughters at least rupees fifty lakhs ought to have been
given by the respondent-husband and since the appellant is
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
working as Govt. Teacher as such appellant is fair enough to
submit that there is no need to award any permanent
alimony or maintenance towards her.
Submission on behalf of respondent-husband
39. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has
submitted that on the ground of cruelty and desertion, the
respondent-husband filed suit before the family court,
wherein though notice was validly served upon the
appellant-wife, as held by the learned family court, but the
appellant-wife chosen not to appear as such decree of
divorce was passed.
40. So far as the issue of permanent alimony, towards
daughters, is concerned, submission has been made that the
respondent has no other source of income except the salary
drawn by him from his employer. Further, submission has
been made that the respondent has liability of housing loan,
maintenance of widow mother, maintenance of his legally
wedded wife [second marriage] and a two years old daughter.
41. Further submission has been made that the
appellant is also working as Government Teacher, however,
he is ready to provide a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- [five lakhs]
each of his daughters by way of fixed deposit in their
respective name, which may be encashed on attainment of
majority.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
Analysis:
42. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the pleading available on record as also the
finding recorded by learned Principal Judge, Family Court.
43. Admittedly, the appellant has come before this
Court against the ex-parte decree of divorce granted in
favour of respondent-husband which was passed behind
the back of the appellant-wife.
44. After filing of the appeal, the matter was sent for
mediation with the consent of the parties but it failed.
45. In course of hearing, the respondent-husband
appeared in person and submitted that the he is not willing
to keep his wife but he is ready for one-time settlement in
order to get the marriage finally dissolved, as would be
evident from order dated 23rd September, 2024, as referred
and quoted above.
46. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred
hereinabove that the marriage between the parties was
solemnized on 25.11.2007 according to the Hindu rituals
and during consummation of marriage, parties were blessed
with two daughters, the eldest one born in the 2008 and the
youngest born in the year 2013.
47. The respondent-husband is a Loco Pilot (Electric)
and at present promoted to the post of Chief Loco Inspector,
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
Traction whereas after marriage, the appellant-wife got
teachers‟ training and after successful completion of the
training she joined the Govt. job as Assistant teacher. It has
come on record that the parties lived as husband and wife
till September, 2012 and thereafter relationship among them
become strainful.
48. It is case of the respondent-husband before the
Family Court that he is the only son of his parents and he
hardly gets leave to visit his native place, but the appellant-
wife never cared to look after his parents, nor interested to
know about them although the place of posting of the
respondent is within 10 km from the parental house of the
respondent-husband. It is further case of the respondent-
husband that the appellant-wife, refused to live with him in
future as wife without showing any rhymes and reason.
49. It has further been submitted that she also refused
to share bed with respondent husband, which caused utter
humiliation and cruelty to the respondent-husband resulting
into a deserted life and further seeing the intention of the
appellant-wife the respondent-husband ultimately sent a
legal notice dated 13.01.2016 to appellant/wife either to
restore the relation or dissolve the marriage. But the
appellant-wife instead of showing to restore the relation send
reply dated 29.01.2016 and claimed huge amount of gold
and silver which allegedly was given at the time of Supurdagi
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
to her as dowry and stridhan. In spite of the said reply by
the appellant-wife he again approached the appellant-wife
for her Bidayee on 13.02.16 which again was refused.
50. In view of the alleged cruelty and desertion the
respondent-husband had filed suit being Original Suit No.
13 of 2017.
51. The learned family Court on the basis of pleadings
available on record, passed ex-parte order in favour of the
respondent husband by dissolving the marriage and
observed that now onwards the parties will not be called
respective spouses of either and all the marital ties between
them is broken down finally.
52. The appellant-wife, being aggrieved with the ex-
parte order and decree of divorce passed by the learned
Family Court approached this Court by filing instant appeal.
53. This Court has gone through the previous order
passed in the instant appeal passed by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court which has also been referred and quoted
hereinabove wherefrom it is evident that in course of
hearing, learned counsel for the appellant-wife has
submitted that the respondent-husband has obtained ex-
parte decree of divorce behind her back and immediately
thereafter has contracted second marriage, which itself
shows the conduct and intention of the respondent-
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
husband, therefore, now there is no chance of re-union. In
view thereof, the appellant only confines his prayer with
respect to well-being of her two daughters, which are
admittedly borne out of the wedlock of appellant and
respondent.
54. This Court, considering the submission made on
behalf of the appellant-wife, is not going into finding
recorded by the learned family court with respect to the
issue of „dissolution of marriage‟.
55. Therefore, the only issue remains to be decided is
with respect to the issue of „permanent alimony‟.
56. Further from order dated 4th April, 2025, it is
evident that the appellant wife is ready for a onetime
settlement if a permanent alimony of Rs. 50 Lakhs be
extended to her as she has to marry off two daughters and
spend a considerable amount on their education, marriage
etc.
57. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances the matter
was heard on merit on the issue of permanent alimony.
58. It is evident from record that this Court, after
hearing both the parties, vide order dated 25.06.2025
directed the parties to file affidavit in the light of direction
passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vrs.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
Neha & Anr. (supra). Accordingly, the affidavit has been
filed by the parties disclosing their assets and liabilities.
59. In the case at hand, admittedly the respondent-
husband is not fleeing away from his responsibility, rather,
when he appeared in person on 19th June, 2025, he has
undertaken that he has to take care of his two daughters.
Furthermore, in the affidavit filed on 24.07.2025 at
paragraph 8 he has stated that he is ready to provide a sum
of Rs. 5,00,000/- each of his daughters by way of fixed
deposits in their name.
60. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
appellant-wife has submitted minimum of Rs. 50 lakhs [fifty
lakhs] i.e., 25 lakhs for each daughter as permanent alimony
be given by the respondent-father.
61. Admittedly, in divorce cases, both the parents are
duty bound to contribute the child's financial needs. This
obligation is based on the principle that both parents are
responsible for the well-being of their children, regardless of
marital status. The specific amount and duration of alimony
are to be determined considering factors like the food,
shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, extracurricular
activities), the parents' financial capacity (income, assets,
liabilities), and the lifestyle the child enjoyed during the
marriage and if any of the parents fail to pay child support,
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
the other parent can seek legal recourse to enforce the
court order, including salary attachment or other actions to
recover the unpaid amount.
62. The Hon‟ble Apex Court recently in the case of
Pravin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain [(2025) 2 SCC 227]
while deciding the issue of permanent alimony and
maintenance has considered the financial viability of the
parties in the light of judgment passed in Rajnesh Vrs.
Neha & Anr. (supra) and other judgments, for ready
reference the relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted
is under:
"36. Before going into the details of the financial
position of the parties, it is imperative that we highlight
the position of law with regard to determination of
permanent alimony. This Court, in a catena of
judgments, has laid down the factors that needs to be
considered in order to arrive at a just, fair and
reasonable amount of permanent alimony.
37. There cannot be strict guidelines or a fixed formula
for fixing the amount of permanent maintenance. The
quantum of maintenance is subjective to each case and
is dependent on various circumstances and factors. The
Court needs to look into factors such as income of both
the parties; conduct during the subsistence of marriage;
their individual social and financial status; personal
expenses of each of the parties; their individual
capacities and duties to maintain their dependants; the
quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the
subsistence of the marriage; and such other similar
factors. This position was laid down by this Court
in Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar [Vinny
Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
: (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] , and Vishwanath
Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal [Vishwanath
Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC
288 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 224 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 347] .
38. This Court
in Rajnesh v. Neha [Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC
324 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 220] , provided a
comprehensive criterion and a list of factors to be looked
into while deciding the question of permanent alimony.
This judgment lays down an elaborate and
comprehensive framework necessary for deciding the
amount of maintenance in all matrimonial proceedings,
with specific emphasis on permanent alimony. The
same has been reiterated by this Court in Kiran Jyot
Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel [Kiran Jyot
Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) 13 SCC 66 : 2024
SCC OnLine SC 1724] . The primary objective of
granting permanent alimony is to ensure that the
dependant spouse is not left without any support and
means after the dissolution of the marriage. It aims at
protecting the interests of the dependant spouse and
does not provide for penalising the other spouse in the
process. The Court in these two judgments laid down
the following factors to be looked into:
38.1. Status of the parties, social and financial.
38.2. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependant
children
38.3. Parties' individual qualifications and employment
statuses.
38.4. Independent income or assets owned by the
applicant.
38.5. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the
matrimonial home.
38.6. Any employment sacrifices made for the family
responsibilities.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
38.7. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working
wife.
38.8. Financial capacity of the husband, his income,
maintenance obligations, and liabilities.
39. These are only guidelines and not a straitjacket
rubric. These among such other similar factors become
relevant.
40. This Court in Kiran Jyot Maini [Kiran Jyot
Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) 13 SCC 66 : 2024
SCC OnLine SC 1724] , while discussing the husband's
obligation to maintain the wife and the importance of his
financial capacity in deciding the quantum, observed
that : (SCC para 26)
"26. Furthermore, the financial capacity of the husband
is a critical factor in determining permanent alimony.
The Court shall examine the husband's actual income,
reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and any
dependents he is legally obligated to support. His
liabilities and financial commitments are also to be
considered to ensure a balanced and fair maintenance
award. The court must consider the husband's standard
of living and the impact of inflation and high living
costs. Even if the husband claims to have no source of
income, his ability to earn, given his education and
qualifications, is to be taken into account. The courts
shall ensure that the relief granted is fair, reasonable,
and consistent with the standard of living to which the
aggrieved party was accustomed. The court's approach
should be to balance all relevant factors to avoid
maintenance amounts that are either excessively high
or unduly low, ensuring that the dependant spouse can
live with reasonable comfort post-separation."
63. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts and case laws,
this Court has to ascertain the amount and duration of
alimony, to be determined considering factors like the
food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare,
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
extracurricular activities), the parents' financial capacity
(income, assets, liabilities), and the lifestyle the children
enjoyed during the marriage in the light of affidavit filed
by the parties.
64. In pursuance to the order dated 25.06.2025 passed
by this Court, both the parties filed affidavit.
65. The appellant-wife in her affidavit and annexure
thereto has stated that she is living in the rented house
with her two daughters aged about 17 and 12 years
respectively and further stated that she has no other
source of income save and except her salary. She has
fairly disclosed her salary to be Rs. 85,270/- as drawn in
January, 2025, in support thereof, she has annexed the
salary slip. She has further stated that she has taken
personal loan of rupees ten lakhs. So far maintenance
upon the two daughters are concerned, she has stated
that rupees fifty thousand [Rs.55,000/-] approx. is
incurred on monthly basis. Besides, there is expenditure
on herself also.
66. Besides she has also claimed that gold ornaments of
about 300 grams and silver ornaments of 750 grams are
in possession of the respondent-husband, which he is not
returning.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
67. In the affidavit she has further stated that her
spouse [husband] is having handsome salary having basic
of Rs. 78,800/- in addition thereto 53% Dearness
allowance; House Rent Allowance and other allowances
and perks, as per Central Government. Further
submission has been made that the respondent-husband
has his own house besides two acres of landed property at
his parental place.
68. We have also perused the affidavit filed by the
respondent-husband, wherein he has stated that he has
no other source of income other than salary. When this
Court perused annexure A/1, as annexed with the
Affidavit, has found that in the column "F.Details of
Income of the Deponent‟, he has disclosed his designation
as „Chief Loco Inspector‟ but he has nowhere disclosed his
salary rather simply said that salary as per „salary slip‟.
But he very cunningly did not annex the salary. While
disclosing the liability he has shown the loan of Rs.
28,00,000/-. So far immovable property is concerned he
has stated that he has his own house and two acres of
landed property at his parental place. Furthermore, in
support of his salary/income or liability he has not
annexed any salary slip for the reasons best known to
him.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
69. This Court treats it very serious and condemn the
conduct of the respondent-husband as on the one hand,
he has shown his bona fide and submitted that he has to
take care of his two daughters, who are aged about
seventeen and twelve years respectively but on the other
hand he did not disclose his income in figure.
70. It further appears from the affidavits filed on behalf
of parties in particular at column „F.Details of Income of
the Dependent‟ i.e, the respondent-husband herein, that
he has disclosed the basic salary of Rs. 78,800/- in
addition thereto 53% Dearness allowance; House Rent
Allowance and other allowances and perks, as per Central
Government. In the column of „disclosure of salary‟ at
column no. „F.4‟ the respondent-husband has very
cunningly has stated his salary as per salary slip but very
surprisingly he did not enclose the salary slip with the
affidavit, which shows the conduct of the respondent-
husband as on the one hand he has undertaken before
this Court he has to take care of his daughters and is
ready to extend all support in particular monetary
support but on the other he did not want to disclose his
salary in unequivocal term though he is Government
Servant working in Indian Railway on a higher post.
71. Admittedly in divorce cases, both the parents are
duty bound to contribute to the child's financial needs
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
and for ascertaining their obligations, the income of the
parent in whose custody the children are there as also the
non-custodial parent.
72. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Pravin
Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain (supra) taking into
consideration that the appellant therein is well-
accomplished banker is earning Rs. 10-12 lakhs per
month and the wife is non-working and further the only
son has completed the B.Tech degree, who is with the
wife, awarded permanent alimony to the wife to the tune
of Rs. 5 crores and Rs. 1 crore for the son. Besides,
during pendency of the proceeding, maintenance was also
granted.
73. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the
judgment passed in Pravin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain
(supra), which has considered the catena of judgments
passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court governing the field, is
quoted as under:
"41. In the present case, it is a matter of record and an
admitted fact that the respondent is unemployed while
the appellant is a well-accomplished banker who has
worked in multiple senior roles at various banks over
the years. We have perused the records of finances
produced before us. Even though the records of the
demat accounts and the employment letters produced
by the appellant are almost ten years ago or earlier, his
financial position can be suitably ascertained from
them.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
42. It is admitted on record that the respondent is a
homemaker and has not been working in all these
years, the son lives with her, who has now completed
his BTech course, and they reside in a house owned by
the respondent's mother. The appellant has paid for the
son's education as well as paid the interim maintenance
as ordered by the Family Court. The son is now major
and has also completed his graduation.
43. The appellant is currently working as the Chief
Executive Officer of Vision Bank in Dubai and his
estimated salary is about AED 50,000 per month which
means that he is earning around Rs 10 to 12 lakhs per
month. Though he has filed details of his demat
accounts from 2010, it is revealed that he had
investments of around Rs 5 crores at that time. Further,
he has three properties worth approximately Rs 2
crores, Rs 5 crores and Rs 10 crores, respectively.
44. During the period of cohabitation, the parties were
initially residing in Mumbai when the appellant was
working as a Foreign Exchange Executive with Global
Trust Bank and subsequently in Chennai when the
appellant changed his job. The appellant has worked at
multiple positions in prestigious banks and stayed in
metropolitan cities with the respondent during the
subsistence of the marriage.
46. It is not disputed that the appellant has the legal
obligation as well as the financial capacity to maintain
the respondent after dissolution of the marriage. As held
by us in Kiran Jyot Maini [Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish
Pramod Patel, (2024) 13 SCC 66 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
1724] , it is also necessary to ensure that the amount of
permanent alimony should not penalise the husband but
should be made with the aim of ensuring a decent
standard of living for the wife.
47. Considering the material on record, the totality of
the circumstances and the facts of this case, a one-time
settlement amount with provision for the respondent as
well as the son, would be a fair arrangement. For the
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
respondent, considering the standard of living
enjoyed by her during subsistence of the marriage,
the prolonged period of separation, and the
appellant's financial capacity, a one-time
settlement amount of Rs 5 crores (Rupees five
crores only), appears to be just, fair and
reasonable amount for the respondent to be paid
by the appellant towards settlement of all pending
claims also.
48. It is also equitable and only obligatory for a father
to provide for his children, especially when they have
the means and the capacity to do the same. Even
though the son is now major and has just finished his
engineering degree, the High Court has rightly observed
that it is only after completion of a college/university
degree and in some cases, completing a post-
graduation/professional degree, would the child be able
to secure employment. In fact, it can safely be concluded
that, in today's competitive world, gainful employment
may be feasible only after the child has pursued
education beyond 18 years of age. Mere completion of
his engineering degree does not guarantee a gainful
employment, in these competitive times. The appellant
herein has sufficient means to support his child, and
thus provision should also be made for his maintenance
and financial security as well. An amount of Rs 1
crore (Rupees one crore only) towards the
maintenance and care of the son appears to be
fair, which he can utilise for his higher education
and as security till he becomes financially
independent.
49. Therefore, we fix the abovementioned amount as
one-time settlement amount to be paid by the appellant
to the respondent and his son within a period of four
months from the date of this judgment.
50. Consequently, the appeals are disposed of with the
above observations and directions to the parties.
Accordingly, decree of divorce be granted in exercise of
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
this Court's power under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India. Further, the appellant shall pay the amount
provided above towards permanent alimony to the
respondent and his son within the time stipulated
above. The Registry to draw a decree accordingly."
74. Herein, both the daughters are living with
appellant-wife and admittedly the appellant-wife is
working but having much less salary than that of
respondent-husband. Further, the appellant-wife is living
in a rented house with her daughters whereas the
appellant on oath has stated that he is living in his own
house and further he is having some landed property also.
75. From the pleadings available on record, it is evident
that nowhere it is stated by the respondent-husband that
he has made any effort for custody of the children rather
the appellant-wife has claimed that the respondent-
husband had all time tried to get rid of his wife [appellant]
and daughters and immediately after obtaining ex-parte
decree of divorce contracted second marriage. It further
appears that the appellant-wife all along has stated that
she wants to live with the respondent-husband but the
respondent-husband, who appeared in person, has clearly
stated that he does not want to lead conjugal life with the
appellant and he offered for one time settlement for decree
of divorce.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
76. In the case at hand since the appellant-wife is
working as Government Teacher and she can lead her life
without any financial hurdle as such she has herself
submitted that she has demanded the alimony for her
daughters only.
77. So far submission which has been made by the
appellant-wife that since the children are girl, as such
besides expenses towards education, higher studies, medical
care there will be huge expense on their marriage since the
daughters are living with their mother, who is now divorcee,
as such there would be great difficulty in getting them
married and in that situation if there would be insufficiency
of monetary support it would be very difficult for the
appellant-wife to get them married in a society of their level
at least, this Court is in agreement with such submission.
78. Therefore, this Court on the basis of aforesaid facts,
pleadings and considering the conduct of the respondent-
husband, is of the view that the amount to the tune of Rs. 5
lakh each to the daughter is not enough taking into
consideration the income of the respondent, who is working
as Chief Loco Inspector in the Indian Railway
79. There is no gainsaying of the fact that alimony is
not intended to penalize the husband or the wife, as the
case may be, rather to ensure the child's well-being and
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
financial security but the alimony should be taking into
consideration the lifestyle the child enjoyed during the
marriage besides other factors. The father is duty bound to
maintain his child irrespective of the income of mother.
80. Therefore, this Court, taking into consideration the
view taken in the case of Pravin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju
Jain (supra) and the factual aspect involved herein, is of
the view that for the needs of two daughters aged about 17
and 12 years respectively i.e., for their future survival
including food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare,
extracurricular activities as also the marriage an amount in
total of Rs. 40 lakhs is required to be given by the
respondent-husband taking into account the income etc.
81. In view thereof, the respondent-appellant is
directed to pay an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs only [20 lakhs
each for two daughters], within a period of four months from
the date of passing of this order, which shall be deposited,
by way of fix deposit, separately in two joint accounts,
holder of which be the mother and respective daughters
[i.e., one in the name of mother and elder daughter and
another in the name of mother and younger daughter] for
the purpose of higher studies and for marriage etc. of the
daughters.
2025:JHHC:26953-DB
82. This Court further needs to refer herein that in case
if the order will not be adhered to by the respondent-
husband, the appellant will be at liberty to make appropriate
application before Court concerned.
83. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
instant appeal stands disposed of.
84. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands
disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Alankar/A.F.R.
