[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sandhya Devi vs Rajesh Kumar Singh on 19 January, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No.126 of 2022
Sandhya Devi ... Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Singh ... Respondent
----------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate
Ms. Nisha Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
-----
Order No.07/Dated: 19.01.2026
1. The appeal is under Section 19 (1) of the Family,
Courts Act preferred by the appellant-wife and is
directed against the judgment dated 01.09.2022 and
decree passed thereof dated 09.09.2022 in Original Suit
No.80 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the marriage
has been dissolved and the respondent-husband was
further directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.10 Lacs
to the appellant-wife by way of permanent alimony
within a period of six months from the date of the order.
2. The husband has filed the suit for divorce on
the ground of cruelty and desertion before the Family
Court, Jamtara. The appellant-wife has made out a case
that it is the wife who has been deserted on the ground
that the respondent-husband has solemnized second
marriage in course of survival of the first marriage.
3. The learned Family Court has dissolved the
marriage on the ground of desertion but, as per the case
of the appellant-wife the factum of the solemnization of
second marriage which forced the appellant-wife to part
away from the life of the respondent-husband has not
been taken into consideration.
4. In such view of the matter, according to the
learned counsel for the appellant-wife, it cannot be said
that the appellant-wife, on her own volition, has left the
matrimonial house. However, it has been submitted on
behalf of appellant that since the second marriage has
been solemnized in course of survival of the first
marriage and from the wedlock (of second marriage) the
children are also there, as such, now there is no chance
of reunion as is being proposed on behalf of learned
counsel for the respondent-husband. Rather, the only
issue is the settlement in terms of money.
5. It has been contended that a lumpsum amount
of Rs. 10 Lacs has been directed to be paid in favour of
the appellant-wife as a permanent alimony which is
insufficient for survival of the appellant-wife in view of
the fact that the total monthly income as has been taken
note in the judgment impugned is based upon the pay-
slip issued by the employer of the respondent-husband
which has been shown to be Rs. 80,000/- (Eighty
Thousand). However, the learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that the respondent-husband is
a Central Government employee working in the
Chittaranjan Locomotive Works and, as such, he is going
to retire in the month of August on 31st August, 2026.
6. This Court has posed a specific question to the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband
that what is the basis of assessing the amount which is
to be paid by the respondent-husband in favour of the
appellant-wife amounting to Rs. 10 Lacs, he has not
answered the basis thereof.
7. The question is that when the Family Court has
assessed a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs as permanent alimony,
meaning thereby, that the learned Family Court has also
come to the conclusive finding of the need of the money
which is required for the sustenance of the future life of
the appellant-wife, as such, it was bounden duty of the
concerned court to make proper assessment of the
quantum of amount said to be sufficient for survival of a
future life of the appellant-wife as the permanent
alimony.
8. This Court on the basis of the discussions made
hereinabove is of the view that in an event of the instant
case, Rs. 10 Lacs cannot be said to be a sufficient
amount, that too, when the respondent-husband being a
Central Government employee having sufficient means.
The wife, therefore, is also entitled to survive as per the
living standard of the husband.
9. This Court in order to consider the issue of
enhancement in the quantum of permanent alimony is
of the view that the General Manager, Chittaranjan
Locomotive Works, Chittaranjan, West Bengal is to be
impleaded as party-respondent.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant-wife is
directed to implead the General Manager, Chittaranjan
Locomotive Works, Chittaranjan, West Bengal as party
to the proceeding.
11. Office is directed to issue notice upon the
General Manager, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works,
Chittaranjan, West Bengal.
12. Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned Central
Government counsel waives notice on behalf of the newly
impleaded respondent.
13. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Central Government
counsel has submitted that the respondent-husband is
in the pensionable service, i.e. under the Old Pension
Scheme.
14. Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned Central
Government counsel is hereby directed to file an affidavit
enclosing therein all the details of the retiral benefits
which is to be paid in favour of the respondent-husband
alongwith his pay-slip with the statement of accounts.
15. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Central Government
counsel has ensured this Court to communicate this
order to the General Manager, Chittaranjan Locomotive
Works, Chittaranjan, West Bengal forthwith.
16. List this matter on 03rd February, 2026.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
19th January, 2026
R.K/Rajnish
