[Cites 47, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Priyanka Sahi vs Siddarth Rao Son Of Dinesh Kumar Rao on 21 January, 2026
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 213 of 2019
-----
Priyanka Sahi, wife of Mr. Siddarath Rao @ Rahul, presently
residing at Mohalla Pipra Kalla, Garhwa PO & PS & Dist. Garhwa,
Permanent resident of village Sapha Garulha, PO and PS Ramkola,
District Khusi Nagar (U.P.) .... ... Appellant/ Petitioner
Versus
Siddarth Rao son of Dinesh Kumar Rao, presently residing at Khurd
Mines, Sindeshwar, PO and PS Dariba Sub Division Rail Magara
Dist. Rajasmand (Rajasthan) Permanent resident of village Sapha
Garulha PO and PS Ramkola District Khusi Nagar (U.P.)
.... ... Respondent/Respondent
With
F.A. No.23 of 2018
-----
Siddarth Rao @ Rahul, son of Dinesh Kumar, aged about 31 years,
permanent resident of village and post-Sapha Garulha, PS:
Ramkola,District Kushi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, presently residing at
Khurd Mines Sindeshar, PO: Dariba, PS Dariba, Sub-Division Rail
Magara, District: Rajasmand,Rajasthan .... Respondent/ Appellant
Versus
Priyanka Sahi, wife of Mr. Siddarth Rao @ Rahul, daughter of
Yashwant Kr. Sahi, permanent resident of village and post-Sapha
Garulha, PS Ramkola, District Kushi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, presently
residing at Mohalla-Pipra Kalla, Garhwa, PO and PS and District
Garhwa, Jharkhand. .... ... Petitioner/ Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-------
For the Appellant : Mr.Ashish Gautam, Advocate;
Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
------
C.A.V. ON: 22.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:21/01/2026
[Per: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]
1. Both the appeals have been preferred under section 19(1) of the
Family Courts Act, 1984.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment dated
16.02.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in
Original M.M.Suit No. 68 of 2016, as such, both the appeals have been
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
tagged together and taken up together for analogous hearing and are
being disposed of by this common order.
3. F.A. No. 213 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner/appellant-wife
against part of the judgment dated 16.2.2017 and decree dated 06.3.2017
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original
M.M.Suit No. 68 of 2016whereby and whereunder the Learned Family
Court while allowing the petition filed under Section 12(1) (C) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 by appellant/petitioner/wife has granted Rs.
30,00,000/-(Thirty Lakh) as permanent alimony to appellant and herein
the amount of alimony has been challenged on the ground of
miscalculation.
4. F.A. No. 23 of 2018 has been filed by the respondent/appellant-
husband against the impugned judgment dated 16.2.2017 passed in
Original M.M. Suit No.68 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Garhwa whereby and whereunder the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Garhwa has been pleased to ex-parte disposed of
the respondent's-wife petition filed under section 12(1)(C) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for declaration of marriage as void between the
parties and further the appellant-husband was directed to deposit a sum
of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the respondent-wife as permanent alimony within
six months from the date of the order.
Factual Matrix
5. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the petition filed under
Section 12(1)(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the petitioner-
wife, needs to be referred herein which are as under:
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
6. The petitioner's [the appellant in FA No. 213 of 2019] case, in brief, is
that the marriage of petitioner-appellant and respondent-husband [the
respondent in FA No. 213 of 2019] was solemnized on 02.12.2015 as per
Hindu rites and rituals at Gorakhpur. The Chheka between petitioner and
respondent was performed at Garhwa in presence of their relatives. The
parent of the petitioner gave a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash and other
precious gifts. Various utensils, furniture and jewellery were also given
to the respondent and his family members worth Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.
10,70,000/- was also given for purchasing a car and Rs. 50,000/- for
insuring the delivery of car, total Rs. 11,20,000/- was transferred by
father of the petitioner in the bank account of Chambal Motor Car LLP
having A/C No. 52000011838169 apart from this a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
has been transferred in the account of Sushant Rao maternal brother of
respondent in account No. 815314096894 on 10.11.2015.
7. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was also transferred in the Bank
account of respondent vide account No. 088301502202 and on the same
day a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- was also transferred in bank account of
Manish Rao the maternal brother of respondent in account No.
30819109305.These transfers have been made by the father of the
petitioner as per desire and request of respondent and his family
members.
8. The petitioner after marriage went to her marital home(Sasural)
where she was introduced by family members of respondent including
one Meeruta Sharma as a girl-friend of respondent. Later this petitioner
came to know that the respondent is leading live-in-relationship life with
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
Meeruta Sharma prior to the marriage with this petitioner/appellant and
this fact was concealed and, as such, the marital life of this petitioner
was devoid of conjugal happiness and pleasure, since the first day of
marriage.
9. It is further stated that despite stupendous events, the
petitioner/appellant tried to accept the live-in-relationship of her husband
with Meeruta Sharma and tried to adjust herself in such environment but
soon thereafter a demand of Rs.15,00,000/- in cash was made by the
respondent and other members of his family which was declined to fulfill
by the petitioner and her parents. The petitioner further says that she has
been a subject of physical and mental torture at the hands of respondent
and other members of his family in order to fulfill the demand of more
dowry. The parent of the petitioner also requested the respondent to
maintain good relationship with his daughter but no any heed was paid
by the respondent and there was no any change of behaviour. The
respondent neither offered any care, regard and respect towards the
petitioner in order to give devotion so as to give the occasion to
consummate the marriage at any point of time.
10. It is further stated that the petitioner also came to know that
respondent is addicted to drinking who cannot pass even a day without
taking wine and in this way the life of petitioner became hellish. The
callous attitude of respondent and his family members gradually
increased with the passage of time and the petitioner continued to be
subject of humiliation and atrocities.
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
11. It is further mentioned that when all sincere efforts could not
reach to its required destination and the petitioner has reason to believe
that she has been cheated and defrauded by the respondent and his family
members, the petitioner was ousted from her Sasural on 02.03.2016 by
the respondent and other members of his family after depriving her all of
her belongings and Stridhan.
12. The petitioner anyhow reached Garhwa and narrated the entire
pathetic story to her parents and the parents took all possible efforts to
get the matter resolved but all went in vain and the respondent was
adamant to demand more dowry from the petitioner. But consent of
marriage of the petitioner was given after having been defrauded by the
respondent that he was a man of good character and reputation but the
petitioner has no reason to continue the marital relation.
13. The cause of action for the suit arose on 20.02.2015 and
26.04.2015 when Chheka and formal ring ceremony was held and also
on 02.12.2015 when marriage was performed.
14. The cause of action also arose on several other dates when
petitioner was subjected to fraudulent and deceitful act of respondent and
his family members. It is further contended that respondent is the head of
Instrumentation of Khurd Mines Sindeshar(Rajasthan) and is getting a
handsome annual package of Rs.16,00,000/-, besides this the respondent
has also valuable ancestral property about forty acres land and he has
also residential plots of Rs.50,00,000/- at Alwar. Respondent thus
belongs to a well-to-do prosperous family. The father of the petitioner is
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
also a Production Manager at Jain Irrigation Alwar and has also a
handsome annual salary.
15. The petitioner/appellant/wife by filing of the suit sought reliefs
from the court to annul the marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent by passing a decree of nullity and further to pass a decree of
permanent alimony and maintenance to the tune of Rs. 100,00,000/-
(Rs.One Crore) in favour of the petitioner against the respondent U/s 25
Hindu Marriage Act. Besides these reliefs, the petitioner also sought a
decree regarding exclusive ownership of the properties and materials and
valuable things which were given to the respondent in lieu of marriage
and cash amount of Rs. 26,40,000/- with interest @ 14% payable
thereon u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
16. It is evident from record that despite summon and notices
issued against the respondent/husband Siddarth Rao @ Rahul, has
neither appeared in this case nor filed any written statement against the
claim of the petitioner, thereafter when on several repeated opportunities
given to the respondent, he miserably failed to appear in this case and
has not filed written statement, then the learned Family Court has
proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.07.2016.
17. The evidence has been laid on behalf of the petitioner/appellant.
She has examined two witnesses in her favour.
18. Thereafter, the judgment dated 16.02.2017 has been passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa allowing the Suit by
holding that the marriage between the petitioner, namely, Priyanka Sahi,
appellant herein with the respondent Siddarth Rao, respondent herein, is
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
ordered to be ceased and extinct and is hereby declared annulled by a
decree of nullity and further the husband was directed to deposit a sum of
Rs. 30,00,000/- in favour of his wife in the form of permanent-alimony
within six months from the date of order through account-payee cheque
and the decree was signed on 06.03.2017.
19. The petitioner/appellant/wife (in F.A. No. 213 of 2019) has
preferred the instant appellant against the part of the order/ judgment
dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned Family Court whereby while
allowing the suit filed by the appellant/wife under Section 12(1) (C) has
determined the permanent alimony of the Rs. 30,00,000/- in the favour of
appellant and the said amount of the alimony has been challenged
herein on the ground of inadequately fixed alimony.
20. The respondent/appellant/husband (in F.A. No. of 23 of 2018)
had challenged the order/ judgment dated 16.02.2017 whereby suit filed
by the respondent/petitioner/wife for annulment of the marriage on the
ground of fraud/concealment of fact, has been allowed ex-parte in favour
of the respondent/petitioner/wife.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner/ appellant-wife(in
both the First Appeals):
(i) The learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted that
while fixing the permanent alimony no formula was followed
and a lump sum amount was fixed without giving any reason.
(ii) It is further stated that the learned Family Court while deciding
the issue of alimony has not considered the total amount of the
income received by the appellant/husband and, also not
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
considered the status of the appellant , therefore the amount of
permanent alimony as determined by the Learned Family Court
requires interference by this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) It is further stated that the learned Court below has not
considered that no order under section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act could be passed though the petition has been filed
as such the expenses incurred by the appellant should be added
in permanent alimony under section 25 of the Act.
(iv) The Court below has not properly assessed the permanent
alimony and maintenance as required by law and in-spite of the
pleadings and evidences adduced by the appellant-wife no order
was passed under section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act though
the fact was noted in the judgment.
(v) So far, the order/judgment of annulment of marriage is
concerned, there is no element of perversity as the learned
Family Court has taken into consideration each and every
aspect of the evidences available on record and therefore the
order/judgment of annulment of marriage passed by the learned
Family Court requires no interference.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent-
appellant/husband:
(i) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband
has submitted that the impugned Judgment is bad in law, as
well as on facts and is contrary to all norms of
reasonableness and deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
(ii) The learned Court below erred in taking the judicial note
that no summon or notice have been served to the
respondent-husband and proceeded in the suit as ex-parte
only on the basis of the track record of the postal service
filed by the appellant-wife.
(iii) The learned Court below overlooked and failed to consider
the baseless allegations alleged by the appellant-wife in her
written defence as well as baseless allegations of infidelity,
drug addiction and mental torture alleged by the mother of
the appellant-wife against the respondent-husband and his
family members which in itself amounts to cruelty.
(iv) Further the learned Court below failed to take into
consideration not only the continuous threats of filing and
implicating the respondent-husband by the appellant-wife
in false cases but also subsequent lodging of false cases on
several occasions before Police Station at Garhwa including
a case for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A),
406, 420, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which in
itself amounts to cruelty.
(v) It is further stated that the learned Court below erred in
coming to the conclusion that there is no any instance of
cruelty by the respondent-husband against the appellant-
wife. The Learned Court failed to appreciate that the
allegations of mental torture and cruelty were made soon
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
after two years of marriage between the Appellant and
Respondent.
(vi) It is further stated that the learned Court below has gravely
erred in summarily granting the relief against the
respondent-husband without examining the present case in
detail and without considering that the parties are involved
in multifarious litigations and there have been irreconcilable
differences between the parties which has led to
irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Reliance is placed
upon K. Srinivas Rao Versus D.A. Deepa (AIR 2013 SC
2176) and K. Srinivas Versus K. Sunita (Civil Appeal No.
1213 of 2006).
(vii) It is also stated that the learned Court below failed to
appreciate that the act of the appellant-wife and behaviour
adopted by her clearly constitutes cruelty and is a fit case to
grant a decree of divorce.
Response of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant/wife:
21. The contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent/appellant/husband that no adequate opportunity has been
provided to him is totally fallacious in the light of observation given by
the learned Family Court at para 3 of impugned order/judgment dated
16.02.2017 wherein it has been specifically observed that despite
summon and notices issued against the respondent/husband Siddarth Rao
@ Rahul, he neither appeared in this case nor filed any written statement
against the claim of the petitioner, thereafter when on several repeated
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
opportunities given to the respondent, he miserably failed to appear in
this case and has not filed written statement, then the learned Family
Court has proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.07.2016. It has further
been submitted that since adequate statutory opportunity has been
provided to respondent/appellant/husband and he himself chosen not to
appear, therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/husband is not fit to be accepted.
Analysis
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents
and the testimony of witnesses as also the finding recorded by learned
trial Court in the impugned order.
23. This Court, before appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of
the parties as also the legality and propriety of the impugned
judgment, deems it fit and proper to refer the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. For ready reference, the relevant portion of
their testimonies is quoted as under:
24. PW-1,Priyanka Shahi is the appellant-wife herself. She has deposed
that she has filed this application for declaring marriage annulled by
decree of nullity against the respondent whose marriage was
solemnized on 02.12.2015. She further deposed that at the time of
marriage and before solemnization of marriage her parents had given
Rs. 26,40,000/- to the respondent by transferring the amount in
several bank accounts standing in the name of respondent and his
maternal brother. PW1 further says that at the time of marriage the
respondent was presented by his family members as a man of good
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
character and reputation and also behaved in a very cordial manner
that is why the appellant and all her family members became
impressed and marriage was settled. PW1 further says that
Rs.10,70,000/- was transferred as per direction of respondent in the
account of Chambal Motor Car L.L.P. and Rs.6,30,000/- was
transferred in the bank account of Ravi Pratap and Manish who are
maternal brother of respondent Rs.50,000/- was also transferred for
securing number of car.
PW1 further says that when she went to her Sasural soon after
her marriage she was introduced by the family members of the
respondent-husband including one Meeruta Sharma who is introduced
to be a girl-friend of respondent who are leading live-in-relationship
before the marriage. PW1 further deposed that respondent and his
family members put additional pressure upon her to accept live-in-
relationship between her husband and Meeruta Sharma and has also
been demanding Rs. 15,00,000/-more in the name of dowry and when
the petitioner made her protest against the illegitimate demand of
respondent she was subjected to cruelty and mental torture.
She has further deposed that respondent is badly addicted to
drinking and cannot pass even a day without taking wine. PW1 further
says that on 2.3.2016 she was ousted from her Sasural after taking all
her Stridhan and forced her to take shelter of her Naihar. PW1 further
says that due to fraudulent and deceitful act of respondent her life has
become hellish and she is passing through a deep sense of pain and
pathos which cannot be compensated in terms of money in
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
future.Therefore, she has filed this application U/s 12(1)(C) of Hindu
Marriage Act.
25. PW-2 Chhaya Shahi, is the mother of the petitioner-appellant. She has
deposed similar to that of PW-1and averred that the marriage of
petitioner was solemnized with respondent on 02.12.2015 as per Hindu
custom and at the time of solemnization of marriage and before marriage
the parentsof petitioner transferred Rs.26,40,000/- in different bank
accounts standing in the name of respondent and his maternal brother
Manish and Ravi Pratap Rao of different dates at the request and
pleasure of respondent. PW2 further deposed that when petitioner went
to her marital home(Sasural) she was introduced by other members of
respondent family including one Meeruta Sharma who was leading live-
in-relationship life with the respondent even prior to solemnization of
marriage and when her daughter objected the illegitimate relationship
between respondent and Meeruta Sharma, the family members of
respondent-husband put pressure on her daughter to accept this
relationship and in this context she was also subjected to cruelty and
mental torture.
P.W.2 further deposed that soon thereafter at her Sasural the
respondent and his family members have started demanding
Rs.15,00,000/- in cash in the name more dowry to fulfill the lusty desire
of respondent and when petitioner expressed her inability to fulfill the
illegitimate demand, she was subjected to cruelty and she also suffered
mental agony at the hands of respondent and his family members. She
further deposed that petitioner has also come to know this fact that the
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
respondent is addicted to drinking and cannot pass even a day without
taking wine. When demand of additional dowry of Rs. 15,00,000/-was
not fulfilled by the parents of the petitioner, the petitioner was ousted
from her marital home(Sasural) on 2.03.2016 and forced her to take
shelter at her Naihar at Garhwa. It is further deposed that parents of the
petitioner tried several times to get the matter resolved in between the
petitioner and respondent but due to stubborn attitude of respondent the
matter could not be resolved and respondent was adamant to demand
additional cash of Rs.15,00,000/- in the name of dowry. This has
necessitated the petitioner to file this case for dissolution of marriage by
a decree of nullity U/s 12 (1)(C) of Hindu Marriage Act.
26. Admittedly the marriage between the parties was solemnized on
02.12.2015as per Hindu rites and rituals at Gorakhpur.
27. It has been stated that the parent of the petitioner gave some amount
in cash and other precious gifts including various utensils, furniture and
jewellery were also given to the respondent and some amount was also
given for purchasing a car.
28. The petitioner after marriage went to her marital home (Sasural)
where this petitioner came to know that the respondent is leading live-in-
relationship life with Meeruta Sharma prior to the marriage with this
petitioner/appellant and this fact was concealed.
29. It has further been stated that soon thereafter a demand of
Rs.15,00,000/- in cash was made by the respondent and other members of
his family which was declined to fulfill by the petitioner and her parents. It
is further stated that the petitioner also came to know that respondent is
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
addicted to drinking who cannot pass even a day without taking wine.The
petitioner was ousted from her Sasural on 02.03.2016 by the respondent
and other members of his family after depriving her all of her belongings
and Stridhan.
30. Thereafter suit was filed for annulment of the marriage on the ground
of fraud and concealment of the fact under section 12(1) (C) wherein relief
was sought from the court to annul the marriage between the petitioner and
the respondent by passing a decree of nullity and further to pass a decree of
permanent alimony and maintenance to the tune of Rs. 100,00,000/-
(Rs.One Crore) in favour of the petitioner against the respondent U/s 25
Hindu Marriage Act. Besides these reliefs, the petitioner also sought a
decree regarding exclusive ownership of the properties and materials and
valuable things which were given to the respondent in lieu of marriage and
cash amount of Rs. 26,40,000/- with interest @ 14% payable thereon u/s
27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
31. From paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment it is evident that despite
summon and notices issued against the respondent/husband Siddarth Rao
@ Rahul, he neither appeared in this case nor filed any written statement
against the claim of the petitioner, thereafter the learned Family Court has
proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.07.2016.
32. The evidence has been laid on behalf of the petitioner/appellant. She
has examined two witnesses in her favour including herself and her mother.
33. Thereafter, the judgment dated 16.02.2017 has been passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa allowing the Suit by
holding that the marriage between the petitioner, namely, Priyanka Sahi,
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
appellant (in FA No. 213 of 2019) with the respondent Siddarth Rao,
respondent/husband herein,(appellant in FA No. 23 of 2018) is ordered to
be ceased and extinct and is hereby declared annulled by a decree of nullity
and further thehusband was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- in
favour of his wife in the form of permanent-alimony within six months
from the date of order through account-payee cheque and accordingly the
decree was signed on 06.03.2017.
34. The appellant-wife being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the part of
the impugned judgment dated 16.02.2017 and decree dated 06.03.2017
specifically in respect of grant of alimony of Rs. 30, 00,000/-has preferred
the appeal herein being F.A. No. 213 of 2019.
35. The respondent/appellant/husband has also preferred First Appeal
being F.A. No. 23 of 2018 against the impugned judgment dated
16.02.2017 on the ground that no sufficient opportunity has been given to
him and further ground has been taken that there is no possibility of
reconciliation between appellant/ husband and respondent/wife as there is
irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the parties.
36. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect this Court deems it fit
and proper to appreciate the issue that whether the order/judgment of
annulment of marriage passed by the learned Family Court on the ground
of implication of Section 12(1) (C) is in consonance with the
material/evidence available on record.
37. Further, this Court, while appreciating the argument advanced on
behalf of the plaintiff/appellant on the issue of perversity, needs to refer
herein the interpretation of the word "perverse" as has been interpreted by
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous
consideration of the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and
Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr. , (2009)
10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it
is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or
excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant
material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the
vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding
is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27
of the said judgment reads as under:
"24. The expression "perverse" has been dealt with in a number of
cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501] this
Court observed that the expression "perverse"means that the findings
of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence
brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice
of procedural irregularity.
25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [AIR
1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that "perverse finding" means a
finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is
altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v.
CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court
observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings
of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so
perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those
findings. pleading
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the
Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of and law
is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the
Court observed that a "perverse verdict" may probably be defined as
one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether
against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court
defined "perverse" as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper,
correct, etc.
27. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various
dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn.
"Perverse.--Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way
that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable."
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn.
Perverse.--Deliberately departing from what is normal and
reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse.--Law
(of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the
judge on a point of law.
4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language
(Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.--Purposely deviating from
accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward;
stubborn; cross or petulant.
5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn.
"Perverse.--A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is
not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the
evidence."
38. This Court before proceeding to deal with the respective submissions
of the counsel as also before appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf
of the parties, as taken note of above, deems it appropriate to have a glance
to the relevant provisions which may assume some importance in
addressing the issue. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act contains the
conditions for the valid marriage solemnized between any two Hindus. The
said section is reproduced hereunder:
"5. Conditions for a Hindu Marriage.- A marriage may be
solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are
fulfilled, namely:
(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage;
(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party-
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of
unsoundness of mind; or
(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering
from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be
unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or
(c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insantity
(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and
the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage;
(iv) the parties are not within the degree of prohibited relationship,
unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a
marriage between the two;
(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or
usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the
two;"
39. Thus, the Section 5 of the Act 1955 provides that a marriage may be
solemnized between any two Hindus if the conditions specified in the
section are fulfilled. On a plain reading of the said provision, it is manifest
that the conditions prescribed in that section, if established, disentitles the
party to a valid marriage. Such conditions in the very nature of things call
for strict standard of proof.
40. It needs to refer herein that the Section 7 of the Act relates to the
ceremonies for the Hindu Marriage to be performed with Customary Rites
of either party including Saptapadi i.e. taking of seven steps by bridegroom
and bride jointly before the sacred fire to complete the marriage. The
marriage shall be declared null and void at the option of either of the parties
if it contravenes any of the provisions specified in Clause (i), (iv) & (v) of
Section 5 of the said Act.
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
41. Section 12 of the Act, which is pertinent in the present case, can be
resorted to either of the parties for annulling the marriage as the grounds set
fourth therein are satisfied. Section 12 of the Act is quoted below:
"12. Voidable marriages. - (1) Any marriage solemnized,
whether before or after the commencement of this Act,
shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of
nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:
(a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the
impotence of the respondent; or
(b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition
specified in clause (ii) of section 5; or
(c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent
of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was
required under section 5 as it stood immediately before
the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint
(Amendment) Act 1978 (2 of 1978), the consent of such
guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as to the
nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or
circumstance concerning the respondent; or
(d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant
by some person other than the petitioner.
(2) Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-section (1), no
petition for annulling a marriage:
(a) on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall
be entertained if:
(i) the petition is presented more than one year after the force
had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had
been discovered; or
(ii) the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived with the
other party to the marriage as husband or wife after the force
had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had
been discovered;
(b) On the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall
be entertained unless the Court is satisfied:
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
(i) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of
the facts alleged;
(ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a
marriage solemnised before the commencement of this Act
within one year of such commencement and in the case of
marriages solemnised after such commencement within one
year from the date of the marriage; and
(iii) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner
has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the
existence of the said ground."
42. Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act embodies grounds on which a
marriage can be declared void and annulled by a decree of nullity. Clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of the said section provides for such annulment, when
the consent of the petitioner is obtained by force or fraud under
circumstances mentioned in the said Clause. It is settled position of law that
Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act does not deal with fraud in a
general way, nor deals with every misrepresentation or concealment, the
object of which may be fraudulent.
43. It needs to refer herein that under the Hindu Law, a marriage is not a
contract but sacrament. The Hindu Marriage Act has no doubt made an
inroad into the close preserve of the ancient Hindu Law strongly suggesting
the marriage as sacrament and not contract which still goes strong. The
fraud contemplated by Section 12 of the said Act is not required to be
interpreted in tune with the definition engrafted under Section 17 of the
Contract Act. Both the Hindu Marriage Act and Contract Act are not pari
materia as the former deals with marriages and the other deals with contract
and commerce. Therefore, the definition of fraud given under the Contract
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
Act cannot be brought with lock, stock and barrel to a marriage which is
sacrament.
44. There are still strong reasons to hold that the Hindu Marriage is not a
contract but sacrament, as the contract can at the will of the parties be
dissolved but the parties who contract a marriage cannot except, of course,
divorce by mutual consent as provided under Section 13B of the said Act.
45. Further the appellant/husband has contended that issue of cruelty has
not been appreciated by the learned Family Court in proper manner rather
the cruelty has been caused by the petitioner/appellant/wife upon him.
46. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that the "cruelty" has
been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G.
Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it has been laid
down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether, the conduct charge as
cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a
reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live
with the respondent.
47. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the
meaning of "cruelty‟ as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC 105 wherein the wife
alleged that the husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon'ble
Apex Court emphasized that "cruelty" can have no fixed definition.
48. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, "cruelty" is the "conduct in
relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial
obligations". It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such
cruelty can beeither "mental" or "physical", intentional or unintentional.
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
For example, unintentionally waking your spouse up in the middle of the
night may be mental cruelty; intention is not an essential element of cruelty
but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more "a
question of fact and degree."
49. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while
dealing with such complaints of cruelty it is important for the court to not
search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in
another case. What must be considered include the kind of life the parties
are used to, "their economic and social conditions", and the "culture and
human values to which they attach importance."
50. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal conduct such as
asking for dowry. Making allegations against the spouse in the written
statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be held to
constitute cruelty.
51. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife
alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from
"mental problems and paranoid disorder". The wife's lawyer also levelled
allegations of "lunacy" and "insanity" against the husband and his family
while he was conducting a cross-examination. TheHon'ble Apex Court
held these allegations against the husband to constitute "cruelty".
52. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate,
(2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed by taking into
consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written
statement that his wife was "unchaste" and had indecent familiarity with a
person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair.
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were
held to constitute "cruelty" itself.
53. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal
Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has been pleased to observe that while
judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether
that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of
the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with
the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating
treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The
conduct complained of must be "grave" and "weighty" and trivial
irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute
mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.
54. Further in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath
Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"22. The expression "cruelty" has an inseparable nexus with human
conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social
strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life,
relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned
by their social status.
25. After so stating, this Court observed in Shobha Rani case about
the marked change in life in modern times and the sea change in
matrimonial duties and responsibilities. It has been observed that :
(SCC p. 108, para 5)
"5. ... when a spouse makes a complaint about the treatment of
cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search
for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case
may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend
upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic
and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and
human values to which they attach importance."
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
26. Their Lordships in Shobha Rani case referred to the observations
made in Sheldon v. Sheldon wherein Lord Denning stated, "the
categories of cruelty are not closed". Thereafter, the Bench proceeded
to state thus: (Shobha Rani case, SCC p. 109, paras 5-6)
"5. ... Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human
beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there
is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New
type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human
behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained
of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty. 1. These preliminary
observations are intended to emphasise that the court in matrimonial
cases is not concerned with ideals in family life. The court has only to
understand the spouses concerned as nature made them, and consider
their particular grievance. As Lord Reid Gollins v. Gollins : (All ER p.
972 G-H) observed in „... In matrimonial affairs we are not dealing
with objective standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to fall below
the standard of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman). We
are dealing with this man or this woman.‟"
55. In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 it has
been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows:--
99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is
equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound,
therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is
almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to
cruelty in other case. Theconcept of cruelty differs from person to
person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity,
educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social
status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their
value system.
100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain
static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of
modern culture through print and electronic media and value system,
etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty
after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any
straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental
cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and
circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration.
56. Thus, from the aforesaid settled position of law it is evident that
"Cruelty" under matrimonial law consists of conduct so grave and weighty
as to lead one to the conclusion that one of the spouse cannot reasonably be
expected to live with the other spouse. It must be more serious than the
ordinary wear and tear of married life.
57. Cruelty must be of such a type which will satisfy the conscience of the
Court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an
extent that it has become impossible for them to live together without
mental agony. The cruelty practiced may be in many forms and it must be
productive of an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse that it is
dangerous to live with the erring party. Simple trivialities which can truly
be described as a reasonable wear and tear of married life cannot amount to
cruelty. In many marriages each party can, if it so wills, discover many a
cause for complaint but such grievances arise mostly from temperamental
disharmony. Such disharmony or incompatibility is not cruelty and will not
furnish a cause for the dissolution of marriage.
58. Now re-adverting to the fact of the instant case. Admittedly the
respondent/ husband had not appeared before the learned Family Court and
has taken ground herein that there was no proper service of summon upon
him by the concerned Family Court.
59. This Court has gone through the order sheet of the trial Court record
as well as impugned judgment it is evident that summon was served upon
the petitioner properly and thereafter all the possible step has been taken
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
by the learned Family court on order to secure the appearance of the
respondent/husband and the aforesaid fact has also been mention at
paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment, for ready reference the same is
being quoted as under:
3. On the other hand, despite summon and notices issued against the
respondent Siddarth Rao @ Rahul, he neither appeared in this case
nor filed any written statement against the claim of the petitioner.
When on several repeated opportunities given to the respondent, he
miserably failed to appear in this case and to file written statement,
the Court was left no other option than to proceed ex-partee against
him and as such the case was proceeded ex-partee against the
respondent vide order dated 29.07.2016."
60. Thus, on basis of the aforesaid discussion it is considered view of this
Court that the contention of the respondent/appellant/husband that proper
opportunity had not been provided by the learned Family court is not fit to
be accepted.
61. Now coming to the impugned order/Judgment wherefrom it is evident
that learned Family Court has taken into consideration the evidences led by
the appellant/wife and has passed the order of annulment of marriage.
62. It has been stated by the appellant/wife that at the time of
solemnization of marriage the Consent of the petitioner/appellant/wife and
guardian was obtained by practicing fraud on them and represented the
respondent/husband as a man of noble character and reputation but after
marriage when she reached at her marital home then she has come to know
that prior to the marriage the respondent/husband has been living with
another lady in live-in-relationship.
63. From the testimony of PW2(mother of the appellant wife) and
PW1(appellant herself) had specifically deposed that soon after marriage
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
when petitioner went to her marital home the respondent have started
demanding Rs.15,00,000/- in the name of more dowry and when demands
are not fulfilled the petitioner/appellant was subjected to cruelty and mental
harassment and the evidence of PW1 is fully supported and corroborated
with the evidence of PW2 the petitioner/appellant herself narrated the
pathetic story to her parents when she was ousted from her Sasural on
02.03.2016 in order to fulfill the demand of Rs. 15,00,000/-
64. Since the status of prior live-in-relationship of the respondent/husband
with other lady has not been disclosed to the appellant wife, therefore, it
may be inferred herein that consent of the petitioner/appellant/wife and her
guardian was obtained by practicing fraud by the respondent/husband as
required U/S 12(1)(C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
65. The learned family court taking into consideration these facts has
passed the order for annulment of marriage and decreed the suit. However
the learned Family Court has also taken into consideration that the
appellant/wife was subjected to cruelty and torture but since the suit was
filed on the basis of availability of Section 12(1) (c), therefore the learned
Court has based its finding on the said issue and has allowed the suit,
therefore it is considered view of this Court that the finding of the learned
Family Court about the annulment of marriage is not perverse.
66. Further, it needs to refer herein that admittedly both the parties have
been living separately after three month of marriage i.e. from year 2016, in
the aforesaid circumstances and the admitted facts which has been
mentioned and referred in the preceding paragraphs, it is the considered
view of this Court that now the marital relation between the parties has
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
become "dead wood marriage" and marital relation has become lifeless and
without emotional or practical value.
67. It is settled proposition of law that when a marriage is deemed a dead
wood situation, Courts may consider it a valid reason to grant a divorce,
recognizing that forcing a couple to remain in such a relationship only
prolongs their suffering and no purpose will be served in sailing the dead
wood.
68. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Durga Prasanna Tripathy v.
Arundhati Tripathy, (2005) 7 SCC 353, while taking into consideration the
long period of separation of husband and wife has observed, which reads as
under:
"28. The facts and circumstances in the above three cases disclose that
reunion is impossible. The case on hand is one such. It is not in
dispute that the appellant and the respondent are living away for the
last 14 years. It is also true that a good part of the lives of both the
parties has been consumed in this litigation. As observed by this
Court, the end is not in sight. The assertion of the wife through her
learned counsel at the time of hearing appears to be impractical. It is
also a matter of record that dislike for each other was burning hot.
29. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to say the
following:
Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of
no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot
at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their
past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to
allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and
affirming the order of the Family Court granting decree for divorce. --
------."
69. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sujata Uday Patil v. Uday
Madhukar Patil, 2007 (3) PLR 521 has observed as under:
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
"Matrimonial disputes have to be decided by courts in a pragmatic
manner keeping in view the ground realities. For this purpose a host
of factors have to be taken into consideration and the most important
being whether the marriage can be saved and the husband and wife
can live together happily and maintain a proper atmosphere at home
for the upbringing of their offsprings. Thus the court has to decide in
the fact and circumstances of each case and it is not possible to lay
down any fixed standards or even guidelines."
70. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid settled position of
law and admitted fact and also thetestimony of the appellant/wife and her
mother, is of the view that theimpugned judgmentdated 16.02.2017 passed
by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original
M.M.Suit No. 68 of 2016 so far, the annulment of marriage between the
parties under Section 12(1) (C) is concerned, is hereby affirmed.
71. Now coming to the issue of permanent alimony which is the subject
matter in the F.A.No. 213 of 2019. It has been contended by the appellant/
wife that the permanent alimony as determined by the learned Family Court
is not based upon the proper calculation as such requires interference by
this Court.
72. It requires to mention herein that permanent alimony has been dealt
under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which reads as under:
"25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.--(1) Any court exercising
jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at
any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose
by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the
respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and
support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term
not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the
respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and
other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any
such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the
immovable property of the respondent (2) If the court is satisfied that
there is, a change in the circumstances of either party at any time
after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance
of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner
as the court may deem jus (3) If the court is satisfied that the party in
whose favour an order has been made under this section has
remarried or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained
chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual
intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of
the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner
as the court may deem just."
73. The issue of permanent alimony has elaborately been dealt with by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (2021) 2
SCC 324 which is the leading case law in the field, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court taking into consideration all aspects of the matter in granting
permanent alimony/maintenance, has given certain directives and also the
yardstick have been given for assessing the permanent alimony. For ready
reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment wherein law has been
laid down for permanent alimony is quoted as under:
"73. Parties may lead oral and documentary evidence with respect to
income, expenditure, standard of living, etc. before the court
concerned, for fixing the permanent alimony payable to the spouse.
74. In contemporary society, where several marriages do not last for a
reasonable length of time, it may be inequitable to direct the
contesting spouse to pay permanent alimony to the applicant for the
rest of her life. The duration of the marriage would be a relevant
factor to be taken into consideration for determining the permanent
alimony to be paid. 75. Provision for grant of reasonable expenses for
the marriage of children must be made at the time of determining
permanent alimony, where the custody is with the wife. The expenses
would be determined by taking into account the financial position of
the husband and the customs of the family 76. If there are any trust
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
funds/investments created by any spouse/grandparents in favour of the
children, this would also be taken into consideration while deciding
the final child support.
74. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court from paragraphs 77 to 85 has laid
down the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance taking into
consideration the objection of granting interim/permanent alimony to
ensure that dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on
account of failure of marriage and not as a punishment to the other spouse
by taking into various factors viz. Status of the parties; reasonable wants
of the claimant; the independent income and property of the claimant; the
number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain etc. For ready
reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment is quotes as under:
"Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance
77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure
that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on
account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the
other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum
of maintenance to be awarded .
78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the
status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent
children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally
qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of
income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the
same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial
home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage;
whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage;
whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment
opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after
adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-
working wife. [Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge,
Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v.
Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290]
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain,
(2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the
financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be
material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of
interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife
or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient
for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that
the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take
into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the
spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon
factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance
based on various factors brought before it.
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his
actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and
dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the
law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into
consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to
be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of
the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of
living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of
income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain
his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.
[Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5
SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant
factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial
disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the
standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her
matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. SitaBai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008)
1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount
awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two
extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so
extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the
respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to
penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the
wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
82. Section 23 of the HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect
to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
section (2) of Section 23 of the HAMA provides the following factors
which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the
parties, (ii)reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the
petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same,
(iv) value of the claimant's property and any income derived from
such property, (v) income from claimant's own earning or from any
other source.
83. Section 20(2) of the DV Act provides that the monetary relief
granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be
adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living
to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial
home.
84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde [Bharat
Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 : (2007) 140 DLT
16] laid down the following factors to be considered for determining
maintenance : (SCC OnLine Del para 8) "1. Status of the parties. 2.
Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3. The independent income and
property of the claimant. 4. The number of persons, the non-applicant
has to maintain. 5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a
similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 6. Non-
applicant's liabilities, if any. 7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter,
education, medical attendance and treatment, etc. of the applicant. 8.
Payment capacity of the non-applicant. 9. Some guesswork is not
ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all
the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 10. The non-
applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 11. The amount awarded
under Section 125 CrPC is adjustable against the amount awarded
under Section 24 of the Act."
85. Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove, certain
additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum
of maintenance payable."
75. Since herein, appellant-wife is lawyer by profession, therefore, this
Court is quoting relevant paragraph from case of Rajnesh (supra), wherein
the factor where the wife is earning some income has also been dealt with
by Hon'ble Apex Court. For ready reference, the said paragraph of the
judgment is quoted as under:
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
"Where wife is earning some income:
90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate
as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts
have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments:
90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC
199 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 308; See also the decision of the Karnataka
High Court in P. Suresh v. S. Deepa, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8848 :
2016 Cri LJ 4794 (Kar)] , this Court held that merely because the wife
is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the
maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to
determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to
maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the
matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. SitaBai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008)
1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] Sustenance does not
mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. [Vipul
Lakhanpal v. Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1252 : 2015 Cri
LJ 3451]
90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v.
Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015)
3 SCC (Cri) 589] the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was
employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention
that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require
financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled
this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning
some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for
maintenance.
90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani
Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020
SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita
Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 :
(2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] , held that neither
the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife,
howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of
earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and
cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to
maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander
Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] . The onus is on the husband to
establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to
show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal
obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not
disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be
drawn by the court.
90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [Shamima
Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 274
: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785] cited the judgment in Chander Parkash
[Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968
Del 174] with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to
provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.
76. This Court, in the touchstone of aforesaid judgment, is now coming
to factual aspect involved in the present case so as to come to the
conclusion that the quantum of permanent alimony as awarded to the
respondent-wife requires interference or not.
77. It is evident from the record that this Court had directed both parties
to file affidavits disclosing their income and liabilities to enable
assessment of all relevant factors and inconsequent to the said order both
the parties have filed their income proof.
78. The respondent / husband is employed as Manager,
Instrumentation, Hindustan Zinc Ltd, earning approximately Rs.1,56,000/-
per month from his employment. The appellant/wife holds an LL.B.
degree. She claims to be presently unemployed and she is not the income
tax assessee.
79. The respondent/husband has produced his salary slip reflecting a
income of around Rs.1.56 lakhs per month, along with his bank
statements. The appellant asserts that he had purchased flat and having
home-loan of Rs. 18,00,000/- at the rate of 8.45 percent per annum. He
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
had further stated that though the ancestral property does exist in the
native village, but respondent currently do not possess any specific
knowledge or documentation regarding any ancestral property of any
nature, extent or in precise details.
80. It needs to refer herein that determination of alimony requires
consideration of multiple factors. It is evident from the material on record
that the respondent/husband has the capacity to pay a higher amount than
that awarded by the Family Court. At the same time, although the
appellant claims to be unemployed, she is highly qualified and has the
ability to earn and sustain herself, therefore, a balanced approach,
weighing the respondent's capacity and the appellant's needs, must
therefore be adopted.
81. The power is conferred on the Matrimonial Court to grant permanent
alimony or maintenance on the basis of a decree of divorce passed under
the Hindu Marriage Act even subsequent to the date of passing of the
decree on the basis of an application made in that behalf. Sub-section (2)
of Section 25 confers a power on the Court to vary, modify or rescind the
order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 in case of change in
circumstances. The power under Sub- section (3) of Section 25 is an
independent power. The said power can be exercised if the Court is
satisfied that the wife in whose favour an order under Sub-section (1)
of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made has not remained chaste.
In such event, at the instance of the other party, the Court may vary,
modify or rescind the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the
Hindu Marriage Act.
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
82. Admittedly, the main factors for determining permanent alimony, for
a wife include financial circumstances, is income, assets, and earning
capacity of both the spouses, along with the standard of living maintained
during the marriage. But the other significant factors, for determining
permanent alimony for a wife, are the duration of the marriage, the age
and health of the spouses, child custody and care giving responsibilities,
and the wife's educational qualifications and employment potential etc.
83. It needs to refer herein that no arithmetic formula can be adopted for
grant of permanent alimony to wife. However, status of parties, their
respective social needs, financial capacity of husband and other
obligations must be taken into account. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 has observed that while
granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as
there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of
the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the
husband and other obligations. For ready reference the relevant paragraph
is being quoted as under:
84. We have reproduced the aforesaid orders to highlight that the
husband had agreed to buy a flat at Hyderabad. However, when the
matter was listed thereafter, there was disagreement with regard to the
locality of the flat arranged by the husband and, therefore, the matter
was heard on merits. We have already opined that the husband has
made out a case for divorce by proving mental cruelty. As a decree is
passed, the wife is entitled to permanent alimony for her sustenance. Be
it stated, while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can
be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend
upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the
financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. In Vinny
Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar [(2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3
SCC (Civ) 290] (SCC p.116, para 12) while dealing with the concept of
permanent alimony, this Court has observed that while granting
permanent alimony, the court is required to take note of the fact that the
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live
in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she
was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the
amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the
other party.
85. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan
Vs. Raja Sadhukhan [2025 SCC OnLine SC1259] has enhanced the
amount of alimony subject to increase of alimony on every two years.
86. This Court has considered the factual aspect of the said case i.e.
Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja 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
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
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 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.
87. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the appellant-wife is
approached the Hon'ble Apex Court.
88. 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
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
effect from 01.11.2023. The respondent-husband subsequently entered
appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim
order.
89. 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.
90. 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-
husband contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer
financially dependent.
91. 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
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
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.
92. 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 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.
93. 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
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
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 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."
94. Herein admittedly, the respondent/husband is earning around 1.56
lakh per month and in his affidavit has not mentioned any liability except
the purchase of Flat, on the basis of home loan. The appellant wife is an
advocate by profession but she is still depending upon her father for her
financial needs.
95. Having considered the submissions and the evidence on record, we
find it just and equitable to enhance the permanent alimony to
Rs.50,00,000/- as a one-time settlement. This amount will reasonably
secure the appellant's future and ensure a standard of living commensurate
with her circumstances.
96. The amount of Rs.50,00,000/- shall be paid in five equal monthly
installments in between February 2026 to June 2026.
2026:JHHC:1680-DB
97. The appellant shall furnish her bank account details to the respondent
for the payments of the aforesaid amount.
98. While affirming the decree of divorce, we modify the learned Family
Court's order to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the
appellant-wife shall be Rs.50,00,000/- as one-time settlement. All claims
arising from the marriage and the present litigation shall stand fully and
finally settled.
99. With the aforesaid modification and direction both these appeals are
hereby disposed of.
100. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 21 /01 / 2026
KNR/AFR
Uploaded On: 22 /01 / 2026
