[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sanicharwa Manjhi @ Mangla Manjhi vs Atwari Devi Wife Of Sanicharwa Manjhi @ ... on 26 March, 2026
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 174 of 2025
Sanicharwa Manjhi @ Mangla Manjhi, aged about 53 years
son of Late Shanu Manjhi, resident of Village-Chalkari,
Tola, Harlodih, P.O. & P.S.-Peterbar, District-Bokaro.
... ... Appellant/ Petitioner
Versus
Atwari Devi wife of Sanicharwa Manjhi @ Mangla Manjhi,
D/o Late Som Manjhi, resident of village-Ponda, P.O.-
Ponda, P.S.-Kasmar, District-Bokaro.
... ... Opp. Party/Respondent
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahato, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahatha, Advocate
----------------------------
C.A.V. on 19th March, 2026 Pronounced on26/03/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family Court
Act, 1984, is directed against the order/judgment dated
14.05.2025 and decree signed on 22.05.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court,
Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) in Original Suit No. 200 of
2023, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the
petitioner-appellant [husband] for dissolution of marriage by
decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 against the respondent-wife, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the divorce
petition by the appellant-petitioner, as taken note in the
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
impugned order, needs to be referred herein, which reads as
under:
3. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the
respondent according to Santhal rites and custom on
15.01.1989. After marriage the appellant and respondent led
their conjugal life and out of their wedlock, they have been
blessed with a son namely, Santosh Soren. Further case of
petitioner is that in the month of January, 1992,
relationship between the parties become strained for which,
on 07.02.1992 a meeting was called for in presence of
Manjhi Hadam in which the parties agreed to part their ways
by way of dissolution of marriage. It is alleged that in the
meeting, the respondent has admitted that there was no
cohabitation between her with the appellant since last two
years and she had illicit relationship with some other
person. After hearing the statements of the parties, the
Manjhi Hadam Committee and Ponda dissolved their
marriage on 07.02.1992 subject to the condition that the
appellant would give 10 decimals of land to his son Santosh
Soren for which an agreement was also executed. Thereafter,
the appellant has solemnized his second marriage with Kajol
Kumari @ Kajri Devi in presence of Manjhi Hadam
Committee.
4. Thereafter, the appellant has presented an application before
the G.M. Office, Karo, CCL to endorse the name of his
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
second wife as his nominee, but the officer denied to add the
name of Kajri Devi as nominee and suggested to bring a
divorce certificate from the competent court.
5. On the backdrop of aforesaid fact, the appellant filed a suit
being Original Suit No. 200 of 2023 before the learned
additional family court.
6. On being noticed, the respondent appeared on 21.08.2023
but did not file written statement as such the learned family
court vide order dated 22.11.2023 debarred the respondent-
wife from filing her written statement.
7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional
Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo at
Tenughat framed issues for adjudication of the case and
after framing the issues both the parties were directed to
adduce evidence on their behalf.
8. The appellant-petitioner has examined altogether four
witnesses in support of his case, as P.W.1-Suresh Manjhi;
P.W.2-Shanicharwa Manjhi @ Mangla Manjhi, the appellant
himself; P.W.3 Kajri Devi and P.W.4-Kartik Manjhi. Whereas
the respondent has examined three witnesses in her support
as D.W. 1-Santosh Kumar Soren, the son; D.W.2-Atwari
Devi, the respondent herself and D.W. 3-Shanichar Manjhi
[brother of the appellant].
9. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional family
court, after appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-husband,
the appellant herein, could not prove the ingredients of
cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife, as such it
was held that the petitioner-husband is not entitled to get a
decree of divorce, against which, the instant appeal has been
preferred.
10. Before this Court, on being noticed, the respondent-wife has
appeared and contested the appeal.
11. On 9th February, 2026, the matter was taken up. This Court
deliberated upon the counsel of the parties, "whether is there
any scope of mediation". Upon this Mr. Harendra Kr.
Mahato, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that there is no chance of mediation/re-union, since, the
appellant has solemnized marriage sometime in the year
1992. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-wife
has submitted that although, the marriage was solemnized
in the year, 1992 but the divorce suit has been filed in the
year 2023, i.e., after lapse of 33 years. The reason behind is
that now the appellant is at the verge of superannuation and
as such, in order to deprive the respondent-wife and the son,
who is living with the respondent, the suit for divorce has
been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has
further submitted that since, second marriage has been
solemnized and as such, now the only question remains for
alimony.
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
12. Accordingly, the matter proceeded and learned counsel for
the appellant-husband was directed to file affidavit giving
details of pay-scale along with the pay slip and what amount
he is to get after superannuation. For ready reference, order
dated 9th February, 2026 is quoted as under:
"1.In pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2025, learned counsel
for the appellant-husband has handed over the amount of
Rs.11,000/- to the respondent-wife. The wife has received the
same in cash.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. We have deliberated upon from the counsel of the parties,
"whether is there any scope of mediation".
4. Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that there is no chance of mediation/re-union,
since, the appellant has solemnized marriage sometime in the
year 1992.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent-wife that although, the marriage was solemnized
in the year, 1992 but the divorce suit has been filed in the
year 2023, i.e., after lapse of 33 years. The reason behind is
that now the appellant is at the verge of superannuation and
as such, in order to deprive the respondent-wife and the son,
who is living with the respondent, this divorce suit has been
filed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that
since, the marriage has been solemnized and as such, now
only question remains for alimony.
7. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, hereby, directs
the learned counsel for the parties to file an affidavit showing
their source of income.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband is directed to
refer in the affidavit the pay-scale along with the pay slip and
what amount he is to get after superannuation.
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
9. It is made clear that if in case of any doubt, then, this Court
will verify the statements from the employer, i.e., the CCL by
impleading the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the CCL
as a party.
10. List this matter on 24.02.2026.
13. In terms of the said order affidavit has been filed by the
appellant disclosing his income etc. and the matter has been
heard.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has submitted
that for granting divorce the respondent has already given
her consent as per customs of Santhal Community. Further,
the respondent has deserted the appellant since 1992 which
itself is cruelty and a ground for granting divorce. But these
facts have not been considered by learned Additional Family
Court and dismissed the suit on non-est grounds.
15. So far as the issue of permanent alimony is concerned,
submission has been made that the appellant is General
Majdoor in CCL, B &K Area, Karo and referring to pay-slip of
January, 2026 submission has been made that he is getting
Net Salary of Rs. 98,350.51/-.
16. It has been contended that the appellant has been appointed
on compassionate ground upon the death of his father and
as such there is liability to maintain the other family
members also. He has four brothers and other than that he
has his own 03 children from the wedlock of his second wife.
Besides, he is presently maintaining the first wife and son
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
born out of wedlock of his first wife and incurring the
expenses incurred on his education etc. also.
17. Besides that, as per the direction of learned family court he
is paying monthly maintenance of Rs. 8000/- since
15.09.2023 to the respondent, the first wife.
18. In the affidavit, the appellant has declared that he has no
landed property rather he resides at village Chalkari Tola
Harlodih, which is his maternal place.
19. The appellant has further stated in the affidavit that he
would retire in January, 2032 and after retirement there
would have no source of income other than yearly pension,
which as per pay-slip would be Rs. 95,651/-
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-wife:
20. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
wife has submitted that due to atrocities extended to the
respondent, she filed complaint case being complaint case
no. 244 of 2001 under Section 498A IPC, which ended in
compromise but when the terms and condition of the
compromise was violated, a Panchayati was held in which an
agreement was drawn where the appellant agreed to keep
the respondent with full honour and dignity.
21. So far the claim of the appellant-husband that there is
separation as alleged since 1992 is concerned, submission
has been made that it is false statement and even an
agreement was made on 18.08.2012 wherefrom it is evident
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
that the appellant agreed to maintain his wife and his son
with full honour and dignity.
22. Further submission has been made that in the Original Suit
No. 327 of 2023, the appellant has disclosed his salary to be
Rs. 1,06,000/- per month and the court concerned granted
maintenance of Rs. 8000/- but not a single penny amount
has been paid till date, which shows the mala fide intention
of the appellant-husband towards her wife.
23. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted
that though the respondent-wife intends to reside with the
appellant but the appellant does not want to keep her and
solemnized second marriage during life time of his first wife,
the respondent herein, and only in order to deprive her and
her son and in order to remove the name of respondent from
his service-book, appellant hatched a conspiracy with Kajri
Devi, the alleged second wife.
24. In course of hearing on 09.02.2023, learned counsel for the
respondent-wife has submitted that at this stage since the
appellant has now solemnized second marriage and not
ready to keep her, as such the only question remains for
alimony.
25. On this score, submission has been made that she has no
source of income to survive with his only son.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent referring to pay-slip has
submitted that the appellant is monthly salary of
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
Rs.1,51,079/- [one Lakh fifty one thousand and seventy
nine] and the gross annual salary comes to Rs.1960341/-
[Nineteen lakh sixty thousand and three forty one].
27. Further submission has been made that the appellant is
working in Central Coalfields Limited, a Central Government
Undertaking and by this way even the provident fund and
other savings are there for the appellant's present necessity
and also for his future necessity besides salary. But the life
of the respondent and his son who is living with the
respondent is at a very pitiable condition.
28. Further submission has been made that the salary of the
appellant would increase after every six months on increase
of Dearness Allowance and every year on account of annual
increment and further there will be huge amount of hike in
salary due to forthcoming Pay-Commission(s) and
promotion(s)/ACP/MACP and even after retirement the
appellant-husband would get huge amount of retiral benefit
as also the pension but the respondent-wife and his son,
who is living with his mother, has to survive on the interest
earned on the permanent alimony granted in favour of the
respondent. Therefore, considering the life expectancy and
the fact that the respondent-wife and her son has to survive
on the interest earned from that amount, the amount of
permanent alimony may be awarded, so that they can live in
reasonable comfort considering the status and mode of life
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
they would have used to live when they lived with appellant-
husband.
29. Further submission has been made that considering the
conduct of the appellant-husband, who on previous occasion
has defaulted in making payment of interim maintenance as
awarded by learned Additional Family Judge, prayer has
been made that in case of default in making payment,
direction may be given to the employer that in case of
default, the amount as awarded by the Court after deduction
from his Provident Fund or salary etc. the same may be
given; as also liberty may be given to move before
appropriate forum for compliance of the order passed by this
Court.
Analysis:
30. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family
Judge in the impugned judgment.
31. The fact, which is necessary to reiterate herein, is that the
marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the
respondent according to the Santhal rites and custom on
15.01.1989. After marriage the appellant and respondent led
their conjugal life and out of their wedlock, they have been
blessed with son namely, Santosh Soren. Further case of
petitioner is that in the month of January, 1992,
relationship between the parties become strained for which,
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
on 07.02.1992 a meeting was called for in presence of
Manjhi Hadam in which the parties agreed to part their ways
by way of dissolution of their marriage and accordingly, the
Manjhi Hadam Committee and Ponda dissolved their
marriage on 07.02.1992 subject to the condition that the
petitioner would give 10 decimals of land to his son Santosh
Soren for which an agreement was also executed. Thereafter,
the appellant has solemnized his second marriage with Kajol
Kumari @ Kajri Devi in presence of Manjhi Hadam
Committee. After that, the appellant presented an
application before the G.M. Office, Karo, CCL to endorse the
name of his second wife as his nominee, but the officer
denied to add the name of Kajri Devi as nominee and
suggested to bring a divorce certificate from the competent
court. On the backdrop of aforesaid fact, the appellant filed
the suit before the learned additional family court.
32. On being noticed, the respondent appeared before the
learned court on 21.08.2023 but did not file written
statement.
33. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional
Principal Judge, Additional family court, after appreciating
the evidence adduced on behalf of parties, came to the
conclusion that the petitioner-husband, the appellant
herein, could not prove the ingredients of cruelty and
desertion against the respondent-wife, as such it was held
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
that the petitioner-husband is not entitled to get a decree of
divorce.
34. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the
learned family court, the appellant-husband has preferred
the present appeal. However, after appearance of the
respondent-wife, the parties have agreed for permanent
settlement and accordingly submission has been made in
support thereof.
35. 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 the wife on the basis
of pleadings available on record and as per the standard of
life she would have enjoyed had she been living with the
appellant?"
36. 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
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
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 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]."
37. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that concept of
permanent alimony as provided under Section 25 have been
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
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 or 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.
38. 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 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.
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
39. 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)
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.
40. 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
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 25. In
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."
41. We may note here that an substitution has been brought
to Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of
the Hindu Marriage Act with effect from 27th May 1997.
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 substitution 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/wife,
it is established that the husband/wife has not remained
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
chaste after the decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-
section (1) of Section 25.
42. 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 thatfor 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, 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
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
courts have to be kept (sic keep) in mind while determining
maintenance or permanent alimony.
43. 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:
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
2026:JHHC:8777-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.
44. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr [(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 paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted
as under:
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
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]
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
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
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.
45. 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.
46. This Court has considered the factual aspect of the said case
and on perusal of the fact, referred therein, it is evident that
in the said case, 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
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
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 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
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
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.
47. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the
appellant-wife is approached the Hon'ble Apex Court.
48. 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 subsequently entered
appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the
said interim order.
49. 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
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the
parties during the marriage.
50. 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.
51. 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 cost of
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole
means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the
amount.
52. 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 the son's right to inheritance remains
unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may
be pursued in accordance with law.
53. 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
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
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 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."
54. In the instant case, it is evident that the appellant-wife and
respondent-husband were married on 15.01.1989 and son
was born out of their wedlock. Allegedly, after panchayati
being taken place in the year 1992, the appellant contracted
second marriage in the life time of his first wife. The first
wife, the respondent herein had filed one complaint case
being Complaint Case No. 244 of 2001 under Section 498A
IPC, which ended in compromise but when the terms and
condition of the compromise was violated, a Panchayati was
held in which an agreement was drawn where the appellant
agreed to keep the respondent with full honour and dignity.
Further Original Suit No. 327 of 2023, was also filed in
which maintenance to the tune of of Rs. 8000/-has been
awarded but allegedly but not a single penny amount has
been paid till date.
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
55. The marriage was solemnized in the year 1989 and the
appellant has filed the suit for divorce in the year 2023 i.e.,
after 33 years of marriage. Out of their wedlock one son is
also there. But, during the subsistence of first marriage and
the lifetime of first wife, the appellant solemnized second
marriage, which fact is admitted one. As per the case of the
appellant, when the appellant intended to enter the name of
his second wife and children born out of the wedlock of
second wife, the CCL authorities refused to enter their name
and asked to furnish the divorce decree of first wife, then
only such entry would be made.
56. In the backdrop of these facts, the appellant filed the suit for
divorce which has been dismissed, against which the present
appeal has been filed.
57. In this Court, learned counsel for the appellant-husband, on
instruction, has submitted that there is no chance of re-
union.
58. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that
since the appellant has solemnized second marriage and did
not want to live with her, as such the parties agreed for
settlement by way of permanent alimony. Accordingly,
affidavit has been filed on behalf of appellant-husband
showing his income etc.
59. We have perused the affidavit filed by the appellant-husband
wherefrom it is evident that the appellant is working in the
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
Central Coalfields Limited, a Government of India
Undertaking. From the salary-slip as annexed with the
affidavit filed by the appellant-husband, it is evident that his
Gross Salary is Rs. 1,51,079/-. It is further evident that his
annual gross is Rs. 1836830/- and so far deductions are
concerned, i.e., Rs. 17175/- towards CMPF-Coal Mines
Provident Fund]; Rs. 8854-CMPS -Coal Mines Pension
Scheme; Rs. 5051 toward LIC Premium; and Rs. 21339
towards income tax. Meaning thereby save and except the
amount deducted towards income tax to the tune of Rs.
21339, other deductions are the savings towards his future.
Further, the service of the appellant is pensionable one and
as per the affidavit filed by the appellant he would receive an
amount of Rs. 95,651/- towards annual pension. But,
certainly, the amount so shown by him is as per the salary
and saving towards pension fund and it may increase at the
time of superannuation of the appellant.
60. However, from the affidavit or from the salary slip, there is
no reflection of the total amount of provident fund which
accrued in his Provident Fund Account. The appellant has
also not shown his other savings though allegedly since long
is in service. Further, as per the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the respondent-wife, the appellant till
date had not paid a penny of amount towards maintenance
as has been directed by the learned family court.
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
61. Further ground has been taken on behalf of respondent-wife
that the salary of the appellant would increase after every six
months on increase of Dearness Allowance and every year on
account of annual increment and further there will be huge
amount of hike in salary due to forthcoming Pay-
Commissions and promotions/ACP/MACP and even after
retirement the appellant-husband would get huge amount of
retiral benefit towards -provident fund amount, leave
encashment, gratuity etc. as also the yearly pension but the
respondent-wife and their son, who is living with his mother,
has to survive on the interest earned on the permanent
alimony granted in favour of the respondent.
62. Further submission has been made that considering the life
expectancy of the respondent-wife; and further taking into
consideration the future inflation etc., a huge amount would
require however, a considerable amount may be directed to
be paid for survival of the wife on the interest earned from
that amount.
63. This Court, considering the submissions advanced on behalf
of parties and law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred
hereinabove, has again perused the affidavit filed by the
appellant-husband and found therefrom that the appellant's
Gross Salary is Rs. 1,51,079/- and even after retirement he
will get a considerable amount towards retiral dues and he
would also get regular pension.
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
64. Whereas on the other hand, the respondent-wife has to
survive for his livelihood solely on the amount of permanent
alimony so given by the appellant-husband.
65. This Court, taking life expectancy of the wife and 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 vis-à-vis 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, is of the view that a minimum amount of Rs. 30
lakhs would be just and proper.
66. This Court is conscious that the appellant-husband is also
to survive and he has other liability and responsibility but it
is also his utmost duty to maintain the standard of life of the
respondent-wife and his son, they would have enjoyed
during subsistence of the marriage as per income and status
of his husband, the appellant herein.
67. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court thought it proper that
a sum of Rs. 3000000/- [thirty lakhs] in total as one time
permanent alimony would be just, fair and reasonable, for
sustenance of the respondent-wife, who has no other source
of income other than the amount alimony so received by the
appellant-husband for her livelihood and sustenance. The
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
said amount shall be paid by him in three 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.
68. It is made clear that since it is admitted fact that one son
born out of the wedlock of the appellant and respondent, as
such the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and
any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in
accordance with law.
69. This Court, considering the factual aspect involved in the
case and particularly the fact the conduct of the appellant-
husband that he did not pay any amount towards interim
maintenance as per the order passed by learned Family
Court, Bermo at Tenughat, 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.
70. 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.
71. Accordingly, the order/judgment dated 14.05.2025 and
decree signed on 22.05.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo
2026:JHHC:8777-DB
at Tenughat (Bokaro) in Original Suit No. 200 of 2023, is
hereby quashed and set aside, and the marriage is dissolved,
subject to the final payment of alimony to the tune of
Rs.3000000/- [thirty lakhs], as directed by this Court.
72. With the aforesaid the directions and observations, as made
hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed and decreed
in the above terms.
73. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
26th March, 2026
A.F.R
Alankar/-
