family, so the petitioner has been managing the situation.
IPC and U/s 3/4 D.P. Act and vide judgment of the learned
Sessions Judge-1, at Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 283
daughter. The said proceeding has however been disposed
maintenance to the respondent and her minor child. The
petitioner is regularly making payment of the said amount.
physical torture at the hands of the respondent. On the
to settle the matter amicably resulted in the negative.
a valid decree of divorce through an order of this Court.
the appellant-wife.
3. On the aforesaid ground of cruelty and desertion, the petitioner-
4. Accordingly, notice was issued through post and later on through
the respondent did not appear to contest the suit. Ultimately, the suit was
5. In support of his case, the petitioner adduced evidence solely on
6. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case taking
7. The impugned judgment by which the suit for dissolution of
8. Mr. Vikash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the
(ii) The element of cruelty has been found to be there if
the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant-
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
husband will be taken into consideration but without
appreciating the same properly the learned Family Judge
has come to the finding by holding that no element of
cruelty is there and, as such, the impugned judgment and
decree suffer from an error.
(iii) It has been contended that the appellant-husband has
been meted out with cruelty as also the respondent is
living separately and, as such, both the grounds, i.e., the
cruelty and desertion are available as would be evident
from the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-
husband, but the same has not been taken into
consideration.
(iv) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge
has failed to appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf
of the appellant-husband as in the trial, the evidence has
come that it was the respondent-wife who has treated the
appellant with cruelty by her cruel behaviour and act and
deserted him without any valid reason, but this fact has
not been considered by the learned Family Judge.
(v) The learned Family Judge has not appreciated the
fact that the respondent-wife did not want to lead a happy
conjugal life with the appellant-husband and she used to
make quarrel with the appellant and his family members
without any rhyme or reason and go to her maike with
her minor daughter without the consent of the appellant
or his parents and lived there for a long time.
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
(vi) The learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that the petitioner/appellant has offered to pay
Rs.10.00 Lakhs for education and marriage expenses of
the daughter and since the parties have been living
separately since last 20 years therefore, there is no need
to carry out such relationship which has no worth to
continue.
9. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, need
interference on the ground of perversity.
Submission of behalf of the respondent-wife:
10. Per contra, Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-wife has taken the following grounds:
(i) There is no error in the impugned judgement as the
learned Family Judge has considered the entire issue
and on the basis of evidence laid by the appellant
himself has passed the order impugned.
(ii) The appellant-husband has sought for divorce on the
ground that the behaviour of the respondent-wife is
cruel and she has deserted him without any valid
ground and the learned Family Court, after taking into
consideration the evidence adduced on behalf of the
appellant-husband, has rightly held that there was no
ground found with regard to cruelty and desertion by
the respondent-wife and, as such, has dismissed the
divorce petition.
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
(iii) It has been contended that the issue of desertion has
not been proved, since, the issue of desertion requires
to be considered on the basis of the factum that if the
wife has left the matrimonial house on her own, but
this fact has not been shown by the petitioner in his
evidence during trial and on that basis the learned
Family Judge has rightly dismissed the suit for
divorce.
11. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty and desertion has
not been found to be established, hence, the impugned judgment cannot be
said to suffer from an error. However, the learned counsel has admitted the
fact that both parties are living separately from 20 years.
12. In addition to this, the learned counsel for respondent-wife has
submitted that the appellant has opted for VRS from Tata Steel Limited
and the appellant has received more than Rs.90.00 Lakhs as retiral benefit
and besides this, the appellant has a three-storied building at Adityapur
Industrial Area and has immovable property of about 01 acre and 30
decimals at Ghatshila in East Singhbhum, therefore, the offer of Rs. Ten
lakh as made by the appellant towards her daughter's marriage and
education is very meagre amount.
Analysis:
13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
gone through the impugned judgment, as also the testimony of the witness
and the materials available on record.
14. It needs to mention herein that in the present proceeding, after
issuance of notice, the respondent-wife has appeared and filed her
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
response by way of affidavit taking a plea that the appellant-husband was
earlier getting a handsome salary from his employer, i.e., Tata Steel
Company Limited but he had taken voluntary retirement and he has
received a lumpsum amount of Rs.90,00,000/- approximately from the
said company. It has also been stated that the appellant-husband has
movable and immovable properties at Adityapur and Chakulia.
15. During hearing of the instant appeal, it has been brought to the
notice of this Court that the daughter of the parties is now major. On call
upon by this Court, she has appeared in the Court and shown her
willingness that she wants to live with her parents and she wants to pursue
her M.Tech. course.
16. Further, during course of argument, it appears from the
submission of learned counsel for the parties that there is no chance of re-
union of the parties, as such, this Court had moved for settlement of the
matter in terms of permanent alimony.
17. Therefore, in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Rajnesh Vrs. Neha & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324, this
Court directed learned counsel for the appellant-husband to file affidavit
giving therein the details of salary, bank statement showing the details of
salary and other perks, annexing therewith the salary slip and bank
statement as also the details of movable and immovable property.
18. The appellant-husband has filed an affidavit in compliance of
this Court's order in which he has stated that he has received Rs.1,13,000/-
as gross salary per month till his retirement from his employer and a sum
of Rs.74,98,522/- has been received under various heads after retirement.
He has stated that the immovable property situated at Adityapur is his
ancestral property in which his brother is co-sharer whereas the movable
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
property at Chakulia has been purchased by him after paying an amount of
Rs.6,50,000/- during his service tenure. Petitioner/appellant has shown his
desire to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs for education and marriage
expenses of the daughter.
19. Further, it is evident from record that this Court has passed an
order to implead the employer of the appellant, i.e., Tata Steel Limited as
respondent no.2 so as to know how much amount has been received by the
appellant after his retirement. In compliance thereof, the respondent no.2
has filed an affidavit in which it has been stated that a sum of
Rs.74,01,469/- has been paid as total settlement amount to the
petitioner/appellant herein.
20. This Court is now adverting to the impugned order/judgment by
which prayer for dissolution has been rejected by the learned Family
Court.
21. It is evident that the learned Family Judge has considered the
evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner (appellant herein) for
deciding the issues involved in Original Suit No.615 of 2022 as the
respondent-wife did not appear to contest the case and the matter was fixed
for ex-parte hearing.
22. During the trial, the appellant himself has been examined as PW1
before learned Family Court.
23. In his examination on oath as PW1, the respondent-husband has
narrated entire things as pleaded in the plaint about his marriage with the
respondent. He had stated on oath that his marriage was solemnized with
the respondent on 28.04.1998 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs
at the parental house of the respondent in Village-Chalunia, East
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
Singhbhum and out of the said wedlock a female child was born on
22.12.1999 whose name is Purnima Maity.
24. It is stated by the petitioner in his evidence that the cordial
relation between the parties and husband and wife could not continue for
any longer period due to vital difference in their opinion, mind and status
of living and also behaviour which could not be settled.
25. It has been stated that the respondent was not in any way ready
to live with him in his residence where his old and ailing parents are also
living under his care. It has been deposed that the respondent started
creating regular dispute in the house and gradually she became a lady of
termagant nature. Ultimately, she made her routine to pick up quarrel with
the petitioner without any plausible reason.
26. It is stated that after the birth of the daughter, respondent went to
her parental house with the minor child and started living there and thus
deserted the petitioner and sometime in the year 2006, the respondent came
back to the petitioner's house with her minor child but stayed there only
for a period of four months. Thereafter, she again started quarrelling with
the petitioner and gradually the behaviour of the respondent became so bad
that she started beating the petitioner in present of his parents without any
rhyme and reason and abused him in most filthy language.
27. It is stated that the respondent had filed a criminal case under
sections 498(A)/406/313/34 of the IPC and section ¾ of the DP Act against
the petitioner and his family members, but later on they have been
acquitted vide judgment dated 24.06.2019 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge-I at Seraikella. It is stated that due to cruel behaviour of the
respondent, the parents of the petitioner had died and he anyhow was living
alone.
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
28. It is stated that the respondent thereafter filed a maintenance case
against the petitioner in which he is continuing to pay Rs.8000/- per month
as maintenance amount to the respondent and minor child.
29. It is stated that due to cruel act of the respondent, the life of the
petitioner become hell and she has deserted him since a long period. Before
the learned Family Court, it has been stated that both the parties are staying
separately for the last 20 years.
30. Thus, from scrutiny of the evidence adduced on behalf of the
petitioner, it is evident that the respondent-wife has filed a criminal case
under section 498(A)/406/313/34 of the IPC and section ¾ of the DP Act
against the petitioner and his parents in which they have been acquitted.
It is also evident from the evidence of the petitioner that the respondent-
wife has filed a maintenance case praying therein for payment of
maintenance amount for herself as well as her child in which the petitioner
is paying an amount of Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance and both the
parties are staying separately for the last 20 years.
31. It needs to refer herein that the "desertion" is not the withdrawal
from a place but from a state of things, for what the law seeks to enforce
is the recognition and discharge of the common obligations of the married
state; the state of things may usually be termed, for short, 'the home'. The
desertion is a course of conduct which exists independently of its duration,
but as a ground for divorce it must exist for a period of at least two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
32. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid reference of meaning of
desertion that the quality of permanence is one of the essential elements
which differentiates desertion from wilful separation. If a spouse
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
abandons the other spouse in a state of temporary passion, for example,
anger or disgust, without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it
will not amount to desertion. For the offence of desertion, so far as the
deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there,
namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring
cohabitation permanently to an end. Similarly, two elements are essential
so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and
(2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the
matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. In such a
situation, the party who is filing
33. This Court, on the premise of the interpretation of the word
"desertion" has considered the evidence of the petitioner as has been
incorporated by the learned Family Court in the impugned judgment dated
29.05.2024. On the Court's query, it has come in the testimony of the
appellant-husband as PW1 that the respondent-wife has deserted him
since last 20 years.
34. Herein, as per the facts of the case it is evident that after birth of
the female child, the respondent-wife had left her matrimonial home
sometime in the year 2000 and went to her maike and stayed there till the
year 2006, meaning thereby, the parties of the instant case is living
separately for last 20 years.
35. It has also come in the evidence of the appellant-husband himself
that the respondent-wife had lodged a criminal case against the appellant-
husband and her in-laws under the provision of Dowry Prohibition Act
and in the said case petitioners and petitioner's family member has been
acquitted subsequently.
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
36. 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 practical value. It is settled proposition of law that when a
marriage is deemed a dead wood situation, the 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.
37. 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. --------."
38. 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
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
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."
39. Herein, the question is that when both the parties are not at all
interested to live together then this Court cannot compel them to live
together.
40. However, since the appellant is interested in settling the dispute
in terms of money [permanent alimony], which has been agreed by
learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, this Court is taking the plea
in this regard but the amount which has been offered is not acceptable to
the respondent.
41. However, on the offer being made by learned counsel for the
appellant for final settlement by way of permanent alimony, submission
has been made on behalf of the respondent that she has no source of
income to survive and further she has also no means to continue the higher
studies of her daughter and further she has also no money for purpose of
her daughter's marriage.
42. Further submission has been made that before taking voluntarily
retirement, the petitioner appellant was working in the Tata Steel
Company Limited and he has received a handsome amount from the said
company. It has also been stated that the appellant-husband has movable
and immovable properties at Adityapur and Chakulia, therefore,
submission has been made that considerable amount of maintenance may
be directed to be paid to the respondent-wife so that she can live in
reasonable comfort considering the status and mode of life she would have
used to live when they lived with appellant-husband and further for future
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
prospects of her daughter the money is also required as daughter of the
petitioner wants to continue her higher studies
43. This Court in the aforesaid backdrop facts and submission
requires to consider as to: "what would be the quantum of permanent
alimony to meet the needs of daughter and the wife on the basis of
pleadings available on record and as per the standard of life they would
have enjoyed had they been living with the appellant?"
44. 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, 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
2026:JHHC:6794-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 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]."
45. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that concept of
permanent alimony as provided under Section 25 of the Act, 1955 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.
46. 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 this is to sustain the live
of husband or wife, if having no sufficient source of income.
47. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the intent of
Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act in catena of Judgments wherein it has
been observed that Section 25 of Act, 1955 is an enabling provision. It
empowers the Court in a matrimonial case to consider facts and
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
circumstances of the spouse applying and deciding whether or not to grant
permanent alimony. 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.
48. Thus, a 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 Subsection (1) 14 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.
49. Reference in this regard may 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. For ready reference,
paragraph 14 of the judgment is quoted as under:
"14. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers power upon
the court to grant a permanent alimony to either spouse who claims the
same by making an application. Sub section (2) of Section 25 of the
Hindu Marriage Act confers ample power on the court to vary, modify
or discharge any order for permanent alimony or permanent
maintenance that may have been made in any proceeding under the Act
under the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 25. In
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
exercising the power under Section 25(2), the court would have regard
to the "change in the circumstances of the parties". There must be some
change in the circumstances of either party which may have to be taken
into account when an application is made under sub-section (2) of
Section 25 for variation, modification or rescission of the order as the
court may deem just."
50. 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
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.
51. 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.
52. 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
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all
relevant materials 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.
53. 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.
54. 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
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
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
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.
55. In the case of "Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr." (supra) 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
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
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 paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment is 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 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) 19 290]
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. 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
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
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. [ReemaSalkan 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 the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable
comfort.
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. [ReemaSalkan 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
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
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.
56. 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.
57. This Court has considered the factual aspect of the said case 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 21 that the
respondent-husband had failed to prove cruelty.
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
58. 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.
59. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the appellant-
wife is approached the Hon'ble Apex Court.
60. 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 effect from 01.11.2023. The respondent-husband
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
subsequently entered appearance and filed an application seeking vacation
of the said interim order.
61. 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.
62. 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 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.
63. 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
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
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means
of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.
64. 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.
65. 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
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
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."
66. In the instant case herein, in terms of the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.", (supra),
the affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant-husband annexing
therewith the details of retiral benefit as also the details of movable and
immovable property.
67. We have perused the affidavit which has been filed by the
appellant-husband in compliance of the order of this Court wherein it has
been stated that he has received Rs.1,13,000/- as gross salary per month
till his retirement from his employer and a sum of Rs.74,98,522/- has been
received under various heads after retirement. He has stated that the
immovable property situated at Adityapur is his ancestral property in
which his brother is co-sharer whereas the movable property at Chakulia
has been purchased by him after paying an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- during
his service tenure. Petitioner/appellant has shown his desire to pay an
amount of Rs.10 lakhs for education and marriage expenses of the
daughter.
68. Further, the aforesaid fact has been substantiated by the employer
of the appellant, i.e., Tata Steel who has been impleaded as party
respondent no.2 in this case in compliance of the order of this Court.
69. In the instant case, an affidavit has also been filed by the party
respondent no.2 in which it has been stated that a sum of Rs.74,01,469/-
has been paid as total settlement amount to the petitioner/appellant herein.
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
70. Whereas on the other hand it is evident from record that the
respondent-wife has to survive for her livelihood as also take care of
upbringing and better education of the daughter born out of their wedlock
solely on the amount of permanent alimony so given by the appellant-
husband. At present, the respondent-wife is only 44 years of age and
taking into life expectancy of even 72 years, she has to survive for long
28 years on the amount of permanent alimony given by her husband
beating the inflation etc. and further her daughter who is unmarried is
planning to pursue her higher studies, therefore, substantial amount of
alimony is required herein .
71. As per submission advanced by learned counsel for the
respondent-wife and taking into consideration the voluntarily retirement
of the petitioner/appellant, as also taking into account the present capacity
of the appellant and his liability, this Court is conscious that the appellant-
husband is also to survive and he has other liability and responsibility but
vis-à-vis it is also his utmost duty to maintain the standard of life of the
respondent-wife and the daughter, they would have enjoyed during
subsistence of the marriage as per income and status of her
husband/father, the appellant herein.
72. Further, the appellant 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. 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.
73. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court thought it proper that a sum
of Rs. 50,00,000/- [Rupees Fifty lakhs] in total as one time permanent
alimony would be just, fair and reasonable, for sustenance of the
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
respondent-wife who has no other source of income than the alimony so
received by the appellant-husband and the daughter born out of their
wedlock for her study and future prospects.
74. In such view of the matter, the appellant-husband is directed to
pay a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- [Rupees Fifty lakhs], which shall be paid by
him in four equal installments within a period of 12 months from the date
of passing of the order and first installment shall be paid within a period
of one month from today. It is made clear that out of the said amount of
Rs. 50 lakhs, the appellant is directed to do fix deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs in
the nationalized bank in name of his daughter for her education etc.
75. It is made clear that the daughter's right to inheritance remains
unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued
in accordance with law.
76. This Court, considering the factual aspect involved in the case
and particularly the fact that due to financial crunch the survival of the
respondent-wife and daughter as also the study of the daughter may not
get disturbed, grants liberty to the respondent-wife that if the amount is
not credited to her account, as per the direction passed by this Court, the
respondent-wife will be at liberty to approach the Court of law in
accordance with law.
77. This Court, however, hope and trust that the appellant-husband
will not invite such situation and will abide by the direction so passed by
this Court for permanent alimony in favour of respondent-wife and the
daughter.
78. Accordingly, the impugned order/judgment dated 29.05.2024
and the decree signed on 03.06.2024 passed in Original Suit No.615 of
2022 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court
2026:JHHC:6794-DB
No.2, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur is hereby quashed and set aside,
subject to the final payment of alimony, as directed by this Court.
79. With the aforesaid directions and observations, as made
hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed of and decreed in the
above terms.
80. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai J.)
Sudhir
Dated:12/03/2026
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
Uploaded on 13/03/2026.
