Sushma Devi vs Raj Kumar Prasad Aged About 41 Years
2026 Latest Caselaw 92 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sushma Devi vs Raj Kumar Prasad Aged About 41 Years on 7 January, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                            2026:JHHC:373-DB


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              F.A. No.324 of 2023
                       ----- -
Sushma Devi, aged about 33 years, wife of Raj Kumar Prasad
@ Raj Kumar Sharma, daughter of Raghuwar Dayal resident
of Village Lebura (Kalyanpur) P.O. Banjari, P.S. Rohtas,
District Rohtas (Bihar).
                     ......       Respondent/Appellant
                       Versus
Raj Kumar Prasad aged about 41 years, son of Mahendra
Prasad, resident of Quarter No.IM-177-178, Rangamati,
Sindri, P.O. and P.S. Sindri, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
                     ...     ...       Petitioner/Respondent

                        PRESENT
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                            .....
     For the Appellant   : Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Advocate
     For the Respondent  : Mr. Robin Kumar, Advocate
                         : Ms. Nishi Rani, Advocate
                         : Mr. Akanksha B Raje, Advocate
                           .....

C.A.V. on 12.12.2025           Pronounced on 07/01/2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the

legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on

18.04.2023 and decree signed on 28.04.2023 by learned

Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II,

Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 839

of 2021 filed by the petitioner-husband (respondent herein)

under Section 13(1), (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for

a decree of divorce has been allowed.

2026:JHHC:373-DB

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner/husband

(respondent herein) as narrated before the learned Family

Court, is that the marriage of the petitioner-husband was

solemnized with the respondent (appellant herein) on

23.11.2008 at Rohtas according to Hindu rites and after

marriage, both lived together as husband and wife at Sindri,

Dhanbad. Out of the said wedlock, the couple was blessed

with a female child namely Palak Kumari, aged about 10

years.

3. It has been stated that earlier, petitioner-husband

has filed a suit against respondent for dissolution of their

marriage in Dhanbad Court which was dismissed.

4. It has further stated that after few years of marriage,

behavior of the respondent towards the petitioner and his

family member was very much reluctant and intemperate as

well. Her derogatory and ugly remarks for the petitioner was

noticed to be unbearable using abusive words and foul

language against her husband and in-laws were shameful

and surprising.

5. It has further been stated that respondent also

started trouble and making nuisance in the conjugal life.

The husband-petitioner tried his level best to persuade the

respondent but in vain.

2026:JHHC:373-DB

6. It has been stated that on 16.09.2014 in the night,

respondent left her matrimonial home alongwith her parents

and daughter and went to her Maika with her belongings

without the knowledge and consent of the

petitioner/husband (respondent herein).

7. It has also been stated that respondent-wife has

filed several cases against the petitioner-husband bearing

C.P Case No.227/2016 in Dehari Dist. Rohtas, a

Maintenance Case in Sasaram (Bihar) and also Baliapur P.S

Case No. 127/2017 at Dhanbad.

8. According to plaint, cause of action for the present

suit arose on dated 23.11.2008 when the marriage of the

petitioner with the respondent was performed, it also arose

on several occasions including on 16.09.2014 when the

respondent behaved and committed cruelty upon them.

9. After appearance of the defendant-wife, the matter of

the parties of the present proceeding has been referred to

Mediation Center Dhanbad for reconciliation but the same

failed.

10. In the aforesaid circumstances as alleged by the

appellant, an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had been preferred by him for a

decree of divorce before the Court of learned Additional

Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad

2026:JHHC:373-DB

numbered as the Original Suit No. 839 of 2021.

11. The case was admitted for hearing and upon notice

the respondent wife appeared in this case.

12. Sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent-

wife to file written statement and lastly on dated 24.01.2023

respondent (appellant herein) was debarred from filing the

written statement.

13. The learned Family Judge has taken into

consideration the pleading made by the petitioner since the

respondent wife did not file her written statement.

14. The case proceeded for evidence during which the

appellant has produced and examined only himself.

15. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced

on behalf of the respondent.

16. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned

counsel for the petitioner-husband, framed only one issue

for adjudication of the lis, which is being referred as under:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of Cruelty?

17. The aforesaid issue was decided against the

appellant-wife and in favour of respondent-husband and

decreed the suit on contest in the following terms :

"On the basis of the discussion, made-above, I have come to clear conclusion that petitioner has succeeded to prove his case U/s 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu

2026:JHHC:373-DB

Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty to the extent as required by law against the respondent. Accordingly, I find and hold that petitioner is entitled to a decree for dissolution of their marriage on this ground.

It is therefore, ordered that the suit be and the same is decreed contest and marriage solemnized between the parties dated 23.11.2008 is hereby dissolved. Let a decree prepared accordingly."

18. The appellant-wife, being aggrieved with the judgment

passed on 18.04.2023 and decree signed on 28.04.2023 by

learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court

No. II, Dhanbad, approached this Court by filing the instant

appeal.

19. The matter was heard on 27.11.2025 on that date

Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-wife, has submitted that the respondent-husband

is having illicit relationship with one lady and now there is

no possibility to live together. Hence, the only issue of

alimony requires consideration.

20. He has further submitted that one minor female child

taken birth from the wedlock is living with the appellant-wife

which may also be taken care of.

21. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, this

Court has passed following order on 27.11.2025, which

reads hereunder as :-

2026:JHHC:373-DB

"Order No. 09/Dated 27th November, 2025

1. In course of argument, Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

          wife,    has    submitted       that   in   the   changed
          circumstances     when    the    respondent-husband    is

having illicit relationship with one lady, there is no possibility to live together. Hence, the only issue of alimony requires consideration

2. He has further submitted that one minor child taken birth from the wedlock is living with the appellant-wife.

3. This Court, in order to pass an order on the issue of alimony, needs to consider the financial viability of both the parties.

4. Let the affidavit be filed on behalf of the appellant and respondent respectively giving therein the details of the asset/income along with current pay-in-slip, so far as the respondent-husband is concerned since he is serving in the Border Security Force as a permanent employee.

5. As prayed for, list this matter after two weeks, i.e., on 12.12.2025."

22. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, an affidavit has

been filed on behalf of respondent-husband on 10.12.2025

stating therein that he has solemnized second marriage with

another lady and out of their wedlock one boy child has

born.

23. In the aforesaid circumstances, the considered view of

this Court is that now the marital relation between the

parties has become "dead wood marriage" and marital

relation has become lifeless and without emotional or

2026:JHHC:373-DB

practical value. 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.

24. 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

2026:JHHC:373-DB

judgment of the High Court and affirming the order of the Family Court granting decree for divorce. --------."

25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sujata Uday

Patil v. Uday Madhukar Patil, 2007 (3) PLR 521 has

observed as under:

"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."

26. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid

settled position of law and also on the basis of the

submission advanced on behalf of the appellant-wife that

there is no possibility to live together as also the fact that

the respondent-husband has solemnized second marriage

with another lady and out of their wedlock one boy child has

born, is of the view that the judgment passed on 18.04.2023

and decree signed on 28.04.2023 by learned Additional

Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad

whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 839 of 2021

filed by the petitioner-husband (respondent herein) for a

decree of divorce under Section 13(1), (i-a) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed, requires no

2026:JHHC:373-DB

interference by this Court. Therefore, the judgment passed

on 18.04.2023 and decree signed on 28.04.2023 by learned

Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II,

Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 839 of 2021 is hereby

affirmed.

27. This Court is now proceeding to consider the quantum

of amount per month which can be said to be just and

proper for the maintenance of wife as also welfare of the

daughter, for her study and other miscellaneous expenditure

which a female child requires.

28. This Court, before considering the aforesaid issue,

needs to refer herein the provision of law as contained

under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein,

it has been provided that 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, it may seem to the court to be

just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary,

2026:JHHC:373-DB

by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.

For ready reference, Section 25 of the Act, 1955 is quoted 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 1 [the conduct of the parties and other 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 just.

(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married 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, 2 [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]."

29. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that concept

2026:JHHC:373-DB

of permanent alimony as provided under Section 25 have

been enacted with the object of removing the hardship of the

wife or the husband with no independent income sufficient

for living or meeting litigant expenses; such a leave can be

granted as well who may also be deprived of the same on

proof of having sexual intercourse outside the wedlock. It is

also settled position of law that the Court may grant

permanent alimony to the party while disposing of the main

application even if application has been moved; meaning

thereby the intent of the Act is to remove the

handicap/hardship of a wife of husband by passing an

appropriate order at the appropriate stage either

under Section 24 or 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The basic behind is to sustain the live of husband or wife, if

having no sufficient source of income.

30. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that Section 25 of

Act 1955 is an enabling provision. It empowers the court in

a matrimonial case to consider facts and circumstances of

the spouse applying and decide whether or not to grant

permanent alimony or maintenance. Sub-section (1)

of Section 25 provides that a matrimonial Court exercising

the jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act may at the

time of passing a decree or at any time subsequent thereto

on an Application made to it, order to pay maintenance.

2026:JHHC:373-DB

Thus, a power is conferred on the Matrimonial Court to

grant permanent alimony and 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 Subsection (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.

Reference in this regard kay be made to the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan

Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy,

(2017) 14 SCC 200.

31. We may note here that an amendment has been

brought to Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu

Marriage Act by the Act No. 68 of 1976 with effect from 27th

May 1996. Earlier, it was provided under Sub-section (3)

of Section 25 that if the Court was satisfied that the party in

2026:JHHC:373-DB

whose favour an order has been made has not remained

chaste, it shall rescind the order. The words "it shall rescind

the order" appearing in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 were

replaced by the said amendment by the words "it may at the

instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such

order .....". The legislature in its wisdom by the said

amendment has provided that after the facts stated in Sub-

section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act are

established, the Court may vary, modify or rescind any such

order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu

Marriage Act. Thus, after 1976, there is a discretion

conferred on the Court by Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of

the Hindu Marriage Act of declining to rescind, vary or

modify the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 thereof,

even if on an Application made by the husband, it is

established that the wife has not remained chaste after the

decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-section (1)

of Section 25.

32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinny Parmvir

Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 while

appreciating the core of Section 25 of the Act 1955 has

observed that for permanent alimony and maintenance of

either spouse, the respondent's own income and other

property, and the income and other property of the applicant

2026:JHHC:373-DB

are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the

parties and other circumstances of the case, for ready

reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment

is being quoted as under:

"12. As per Section 25, while considering the claim for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent's own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. It is further seen that the court considering such claim has to consider all the above relevant materials and determine the amount which is to be just for living standard. No fixed formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has to be in the nature of things which depend on various facts and circumstances of each case. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute. The courts also have to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to live 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. These are all the broad principles courts have to be kept (sic keep) in mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony."

33. It needs to refer herein that no arithmetic formula can

be adopted for grant of permanent alimony to wife. However,

2026:JHHC:373-DB

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:

"33. 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 amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in

2026:JHHC:373-DB

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."

34. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 the

Hon'ble Apex Court has extensively dealt with the issue of

granting interim/permanent alimony and has categorically

held that 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. The Hon'ble

Apex Court further held that the Court while considering the

issue of maintenance, should consider the factors like 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, for ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the

2026:JHHC:373-DB

aforesaid judgment are being quoted as under:

"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 2025:JHHC:21438-DB 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]

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.

2026:JHHC:373-DB

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. Sita Bai, (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

2026:JHHC:373-DB

the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.

35. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of

law this Court, is now adverting to consider the issue of

alimony which is to be paid by the respondent/ husband in

favour of the appellant/ wife.

36. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife has submitted

that one minor female child taken birth from the wedlock is

living with the appellant-wife and, therefore, order for

providing adequate maintenance for the appellant-wife and

the minor daughter may be passed.

37. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that

after the order having been passed dissolving the marriage

between the appellant and respondent, the respondent has

solemnized second marriage and out of the wedlock, he has

a boy child.

38. He has further submitted that the respondent's father

is bedridden, suffering from after effects of brain

hemorrhage leading to paralysis and requires regular

medical care and further, his married sister who is

separated from her husband, having two children, her

maintenance and daily expenses are also borne by the

respondent.

2026:JHHC:373-DB

39. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has

submitted that the respondent is ready to provide financial

support to the appellant-wife and the daughter, but has

prayed that such support may kindly be considered in light

of respondent's actual financial conditions.

40. The respondent-husband, has filed affidavit dated

10.12.2025 wherein he has stated his income from salary,

expenses, deductions etc. He has annexed the Pay Slip for

the month of November, 2025 as Annexure-2 Series and as

per the aforesaid Pay Slip, his Gross Pay is Rs.86,706/- and

Net Pay is Rs.78,476/-. However, after deductions, the net

amount credited to his Bak Account is Rs.77,705/-.

41. This Court, taking into consideration the fact that in

the case of dissolution of marriage in between the husband

and the wife, the interest of the child born out of the

wedlock is also the subject matter for consideration, because

why will the child suffer due to the effect of dissolution of

marriage. Therefore, the question of welfare of kids, herein

the female child, is also required to be considered.

42. The aforesaid aspect of the matter is also necessary to

be looked into by this Court since the age of the female child

is about 15 years only.

2026:JHHC:373-DB

43. There cannot be any separation from the daughter,

rather, the respondent-father is duty bound to maintain his

daughter.

44. The gross salary of the appellant, as per the salary slip

is Rs.86,706/- per month. He is working in the capacity of

Constable in the Border Security Force (040 BN BSF). The

respondent being the father, has got every duty to maintain

his daughter and to discharge his accountability so as to

bring his daughter to a responsible position in the society.

45. We all know that a kid, particularly a female child, is in

requirement of financial means for her study, upbringing,

higher studies and solemnization of marriage.

46. At this juncture it needs to refer herein the judgment

rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakhi

Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan [2025 SCC OnLine SC

1259].

47. 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

2026:JHHC:373-DB

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 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

2026:JHHC:373-DB

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.

48. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the

appellant-wife is approached the Hon'ble Apex Court.

49. 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:373-DB

effect from 01.11.2023. The respondent-husband

subsequently entered appearance and filed an application

seeking vacation of the said interim order.

50. The appellant-wife contended 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.

51. 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.

52. The Hon'ble Apex Court taking note of the quantum of

permanent alimony fixed by the High Court has come to the

2026:JHHC:373-DB

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 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.

53. 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.

2026:JHHC:373-DB

54. 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 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

2026:JHHC:373-DB

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."

55. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that 30% of

the salary of the appellant of the said case was awarded to

be paid in favour of the wife. However, no alimony was

directed to be paid in favour of the son since he was 26

years of age but the Hon'ble Apex Court has made an

observation that giving monetary aid to the said son is being

left open upon the father.

56. This Court, applying the aforesaid observation and

direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in the facts of the present

case, is of the view that in the instant case, the gross salary

of the respondent-husband as per the salary slip is

Rs.86,706/- per month. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the

aforesaid case has awarded 30% of the salary to wife only

and no amount was awarded to the son who was aged about

26 years. But, in the instant case, one female child aged

about 15 years is also there.

57. This Court, also taking into consideration the fact that

the respondent-husband has solemnized second marriage

and out of that wedlock one male child has born.

58. Furthermore, this Court has also took note of the fact

that the respondent-husband is a salaried person having

monthly salary, as such, this Court is of the view that the

2026:JHHC:373-DB

permanent alimony is required to be ordered on month-to-

month basis, as per law laid down in the case of Rakhi

Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan (supra).

59. Hence, this Court, thought it proper that a sum of Rs.

25,000/- (twenty five thousand) per month would be just,

fair and reasonable, for sustenance of the appellant-wife, till

her natural life, therefore, it is hereby directed that the

respondent-husband shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-

(Twenty Five thousand only) per month to the appellant/

wife.

60. Further, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) per

month would be proper to ensure financial stability of the

daughter, for his study and future prospects.

61. Both the amounts shall be paid to the account of the

respondent (mother of the daughter) by 10th of each month.

62. The said arrangement of depositing the amount in the

account of the respondent (mother of the daughter) will be

till attaining the majority of the daughter and, thereafter, the

amount to be paid to the daughter will be deposited directly

in the account of the daughter which shall be opened by her

mother after the daughter attains majority.

63. The awarded amount will be enhanced to the extent of

5% after every two years.

2026:JHHC:373-DB

64. This Court further needs to refer herein that in case

any of the order will not be adhered to by the respondent,

the appellant will be at liberty to make appropriate

application before this Court.

65. With these observations and directions, the instant

appeal is disposed of.

66. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands

disposed of

I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

Date: 07/01/2026

Birendra / A.F.R.

Uploaded on 08.01.2026.