Devyani Kamal Pratap @ Devyani vs Kamal Pratap

Devyani Kamal Pratap @ Devyani, aged about 32 years, daughter of late Kameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of A-102, Utsav Homes-1, Bavdhan, PO and PS:Pune, Behind Chellaram Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra. Presently resident of Chandwa Panchmukhu Hanuman Mandir, Saroj Nagar, PO and PS- Chandwa, District- Latehar. ...Appellant/Respondent Versus Kamal Pratap, aged about 36 years, son of Uday Pratap Singh, resident of V-708, Balaji Whitefield, Sus Road, PO and PS: Pune, District Pune, (Maharashtra). Permanent resident of Mosakchak (Sita Sadan), PO-Guha villa, PS: Jagdishpur, District Bhagalpur (Bihar). ...Respondent/Petitioner With F.A. No. 05 of 2025

Kamal Pratap, aged about 36 years, son of Uday Pratap Singh, resident of B-708, Balaji Whitefield, Sus Road, Pune, PO and PS: Sus, District Pune, (Maharashtra), Permanent resident of Sita Sadan, Mosakchak (Jagdishpur), PO:Bhagalpur, PS: Bhagalpur, District: Bhagalpur (Bihar). ...Appellant/Petitioner Versus Devyani Kamal Pratap, daughter of late Kameshwar Prasad Singh, presently resides at Chandwa, Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir, Saroj Nagar, PO and PS- Chandwa, District- Latehar and also resident of A- 102, Utsav Homes-1, Bavdhan, Behind Challaram Hospital,Pune, Maharashtra. ....Respondent/Respondent -------

CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-------

For the Wife : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate; Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Husband : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate ---------

C.A.V. On: 16.4.2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 12.05.2026

Prayer

1. Both the above-noted appeals under Section 19(1) of the Family

Courts Act, 1984 are directed against the common judgment dated

29.08.2024 and decree dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal

1 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

Judge, Family Court, Latehar in Original Suit No. 54 of 2023, whereby and

whereunder, the Suit filed by the husband under Sections 13 (1) (i-a) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been allowed and he was directed to pay

Rs. 40,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony in favour of the wife.

2. The appeal being F.A. No. 247 of 2024 has been filed by the appellant

wife by taking ground that the learned Family Court while allowing the suit

filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage has not given due

weightage to evidence of appellant wife and her mother and further the

amount of permanent alimony has been fixed in very less quantum without

considering the earning of petitioner/respondent husband and age of the

appellant/wife.

3. The appeal being F.A No.05 of 2025 has been filed by the

petitioner/appellant husband wherein the quantum of permanent alimony

has been assailed by taking ground that the learned Family Court has not

applied the settled connotation of law and arbitrarily decided the amount of

permanent alimony.

Factual Matrix

4. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the petition filed under

Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the husband, needs

to be referred herein which are as under:

(i)The petitioner's [Respondent in FA No. 247 of 2024 &

Appellant in FA No. 5 of 2025]case, in brief, is that marriage

between the parties was solemnized on 28.11.2019 in accordance

with Hindu rites and customs and with the consent of the elder

members of the family. The marriage was solemnized at

Bhagalpur and after few days of the marriage the parties shifted

2 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

to Pune where the petitioner was working as a Senior Software

Engineer and was posted at Pune.

(ii) It is stated that initially for the few days everything was

normal between the parties, however, after sometime the

behavior of the respondent changed and she started accusing the

petitioner for having illicit relationship with his colleagues in the

office. And her behavior deteriorated with time and she started

to mentally harass and abuse the petitioner.

(iii) The respondent also refused to engage in the conjugal

relationship with the petitioner, as a result of which, even though

the parties resided in the same house, but they lived in two

separate rooms. She cooked frivolous and false stories against

the petitioner and also communicated this false allegation to her

mother who called the petitioner and abused him using the most

disrespectful and filthy language.

(iv) It has been alleged that from the month of January 2020

onwards the situation became worse and the respondent started

arguing and picking up fights with the petitioner on frivolous

and false allegation of his illicit relationship with other woman

which resulted in great mental disturbance and agony to the

petitioner.

(v)The respondent further threatened the petitioner of leaving the

matrimonial home and the continuous cruel and abusive actions

of the respondent pushed the petitioner into a state of trauma and

clinical depression. She also threatened for committing suicide

and put the blame on the petitioner.

3 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

(vi) It is further case of the petitioner that on 26.10.2020 the

respondent's mother arrived at Pune and both the respondent and

her mother made the life of the petitioner a hell by threatening

him to implicate in a false case of dowry demand and sexual

harassment. Under the compelling circumstances the petitioner

suffered trauma and clinical depression for which he had to

consult a Doctor in Pune and he is undergoing treatment. The

mental torture and cruelty inflicted on the petitioner compelled

him to leave his house and reside at different abode.

(vii) It is stated that the marriage between the parties has now

come to an irretrievable break down and there is no chance of

their reunion and thus the present suit has been filed.

5. The learned Family Judge has issued notice upon the respondent-wife,

who appeared and filed written statement making a counter allegation that

it was she who was subjected to cruelty. She has stated that after the

marriage when she shifted to Pune along with her husband, she found her

husband to be involved in adulterous relationship with one Moni Mishra

wife of Rishikesh Mishra. She was also forced to establish relation with the

said Rishikesh Mishra. On one occasion after a heated argument, she was

abandoned by her husband in a completely new city. She realized that her

husband is a person of loose character who was having relations with

multiple women. Her husband even tried to get rid of her by killing her and

his constant abuse and violence affected her mental and physical health.

Her mother having come to know about the situation of her brought her

back to her parental house on 20.11.2020. Owing to the mental and

4 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

physical harm she started suffering from anxiety and depression and thus

has prayed for a necessary order in the present suit.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings of the both the parties the

learned Family Court have framed altogether two issues which are as

follows: -

(i) Whether after solemnization of the marriage, the respondent has treated her husband/petitioner with cruelty?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief as claimed?

7. The evidences have been laid on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter,

vide order dated 29.08.2024, the judgment has been passed allowing the

Suit by holding that marriage dated 28.11.2019 between the parties is

hereby dissolved on the ground of cruelty u/s 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu

Marriage Act from the date of the decree. The petitioner was ordered to pay

Rs. 40,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony in favour of his wife.

8. Against the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been filed

9. With consent of both the parties vide order dated 11.07.2025 the

matters were referred before the Special Mediation Drive-Mediation "For

the Nation". As per the mediation report the matter could not be succeeded

rather it remained as non-starter. The report sent to this court by the learned

Mediator is being referred herein which reads as under:

"From Alpana Verma Advocate/Mediator Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

To The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Subject: Result of Mediation in F.A. 247/2024 (Devyani Kamal Pratap @ vs. Kamal Pratap wt F.A. 05/2025 (Kamal Pratap vs Devyani Kamal Pratap).

Sir,

5 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

With respect to the subject noted above, I am to submit that in compliance with the order dated 11.07.2025 all the above-mentioned parties were asked to appear for mediation. The mediation was fixed for 06.08.2025, 01.09.2025, 16.09.2025. No one appeared on the first two dates. Appellant was present (virtually) on 16.09.25. In the above circumstances the matter remains non-starter.

The instant report may kindly be submitted before the Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal and needful.

Yours faithfully.

(Alpana Verma) Mediator, JHARKHAND HIGH COURT. Ranchi"

10. Accordingly, matter was taken up on 14th October,2025 wherein the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife in First Appeal No. 247 of

2024, has submitted that there is no chance of re-union, since, the

respondent-husband has already solemnized marriage. Therefore,

submission has been made that the issue of alimony is required to be

adjudicated, since, the same is in the lower side taking into consideration

the status of the respondent-husband, who is a Software Engineer and is

having a handsome monthly salary.

11. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant-husband in

First Appeal No. 5 of 2025, who is respondent in First Appeal No. 247 of

2024, has submitted that the appeal preferred by him is only with respect to

the quantum of the permanent alimony, since, it is on the higher side.

12. This Court while taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions

and ratio rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v.

Neha" reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 directed both the parties to file

affidavit showing the entire worth both moveable and immoveable

property, for ready reference the order dated 14th October, 2025 is being

quoted as under:

6 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025

2026:JHHC:14747-DB

"06/Dated: 14th October, 2025

I.A. No. 13002 of 2024:

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 03 days in preferring the instant appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in the interlocutory application, the delay of 03 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 13002 of 2024 stands allowed, as such, disposed of.

F.A. No. 247 of 2024 & F.A. No. 05 of 2025:

1. The record has already been called for.

2. The matter has been sent in the mediation drive vide order dated 11th July, 2025. As per the mediation report, which is being available on record, the mediation could not be succeeded rather it remained as non-starter.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in First Appeal No. 247 of 2024 preferred by the wife, has submitted that there is no chance of re-union since, the respondent husband has already solemnized marriage. Therefore, submission has been made that the issue of alimony is required to be adjudicated, since the same is in HAP the lower side taking into consideration the status of the respondent husband, who is a software engineer and is having a handsome monthly salary.

4. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No. 5 of 2025, who is respondent in First Appeal No. 247 of 2024, has submitted that the appeal preferred by him is only with respect to the quantum of the permanent alimony, since it is in the higher side.

5. Submission has also been made that nothing has been discussed while passing the order of permanent alimony as would be evident from the bare perusal of the impugned order.

6. The first appeal being F.A. No. 05 of 2025 has been admitted for hearing, hence the appeal being F.A. No. 247 of 2024 is also been admitted.

7. Since the issue of permanent alimony is only to be adjudicated, thisCourt is of the view that both the parties are required to file the affidavit in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh V. Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.

8. So far as the husband is concerned, he is required to file the affidavit along with other details and the salary slip of the establishment where he is working.

9. Let affidavits be filed on or before the next date of hearing.

10. List this case be listed under the heading "Hearing" on 18th November, 2025."

13. Accordingly, the instant matters were listed before this Court on

16.4.2026 and on that day argument was concluded and judgment was

reserved on point of alimony, for ready reference the order dated

16.04.2026 is being quoted as under:

7 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025

2026:JHHC:14747-DB

"08/Dated: 16.04.2026

1. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband seeks leave of this Court to accept the affidavit which was to be filed in pursuant to the order dated 10.04.2026.

2. It has been submitted that the copy of the said affidavit has already been served upon the learned counsel for the appellant-wife.

3. Let the said affidavit be taken on record.

4. Arguments on the issue of alimony have been concluded on behalf of both the parties.

5. Order/judgment is reserved."

14. Thus, from the aforesaid orders quoted and referred hereinabove, the

parties have shown their willingness to settle the matter on the issue of

alimony and, accordingly, they have filed their affidavits regarding their

source of income and existing property.

15. Accordingly, the matter proceeded on the point of determination of

permanent alimony without going into the merit of the impugned judgment

Arguments advanced on behalf of the wife:

16. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant -wife in First Appeal No. 247 of 2024 that there is no chance of

re-union, since, the respondent husband has already solemnized marriage.

It is further stated that the appellant-wife is aged about 33-34 years having

no employment or any earning and she is dependent upon her parents and

now the father of the appellant has also died having no income and the

widow mother is there.

17. Therefore, submission has been made that the issue of alimony is

required to be adjudicated, since, the same is on the lower side taking into

consideration the status of the respondent-husband, who is a Software

Engineer and is having a handsome monthly salary along with several

properties which are as follows:

8 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025

2026:JHHC:14747-DB

A. A big residential house at Adampur, Bhagalpur duly inherited

from his grandfather and father.

B. The Agriculture Land at Masakchak Village, Bhagalpur about

10 bighas

C. The agriculture field at Aliganj about 2 bighas.

D. A big mango orchard at Alignaj Bhagalpur.

E. One residential flat at his native place at Bhagalpur Town in

3rd Floor, near Deep Prabha Cinema at Bhagalpur.

F. One big shop given on rent a station road, Bhagalpur and

besides other properties.

G. One residential big flat at Pune, Maharashtra besides other

properties at Bhagalpur.

18. It is further submitted that neither alimony nor maintenance has been

paid even after judgment passed by the learned court below except the

amount which has been directed to be paid in the light of anticipatory bail

vide order dated 15.3.2022 and now the appellant-wife is in hand to mouth

and even not in position to maintain herself for day-to-day expenses.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the husband:

19. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant in First

Appeal No. 5 of 2025, who is respondent in First Appeal No. 247 of 2024,

has submitted that the present appeal has been preferred by him only with

respect to the quantum of the permanent alimony, since it is on the higher

side.

9 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025

2026:JHHC:14747-DB

20. It is also submitted that nothing has been discussed while passing the

order of permanent alimony as would be evident from the bare perusal of

the impugned order and in absence of any pleadings/evidence of one-time

alimony the learned trial court erroneously directed the appellant-husband

to pay a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- as one time alimony to the respondent-wife.

21. On the aforesaid grounds the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-husband in First Appeal No. 5 of 2025, has submitted that

substantial part of the impugned order dated 29.8.2024 and decree dated

6.9.2024 fit to be set-aside.

Analysis:

22. This Court in the aforesaid backdrop, facts and submissions requires

to consider as to "what would be the quantum of permanent alimony to

meet the needs of the respondent/wife on the basis of pleadings available

on record?"

23. 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

10 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

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]."

24. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that concept of permanent

alimony as provided under Section 25 have been enacted with the object of

removing the hardship of the wife or the husband with no independent

income sufficient for living or meeting litigant expenses; such a leave can

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

having sexual intercourse outside the wedlock. It is also settled position of

law that the Court may grant permanent alimony to the party while

disposing of the main application even if application has been moved;

meaning thereby, the intent of the Act is to remove the handicap/hardship

11 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

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 reasoning behind this is to sustain the life of husband or wife, if

having no sufficient source of income.

25. 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.

26. 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 on 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 an event, at the instance of the other party, the Court may vary,

12 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

modify or rescind the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of

the Hindu Marriage Act.

27. 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 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."

28. We may note here that a substitution has been brought to Sub-section

(3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act with effect from 27th May

1976. 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,

13 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

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 chaste after the decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-

section (1) of Section 25.

29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinny Parmvir Parmar v.

Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 while appreciating the core of

Section 25 of the Act 1955 has observed that for permanent alimony and

maintenance of either spouse, the respondent's own income and other

property, and the income and other property of the applicant 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

14 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

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.

30. 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 amount of maintenance

15 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

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.

31. 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:

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

16 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

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 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. 17 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025

2026:JHHC:14747-DB

The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.

32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra),

provided a comprehensive criterion and list of factors to be looked into

while deciding the question of permanent alimony. This judgment lays

down an elaborate and comprehensive framework necessary for deciding

the amount of maintenance in all matrimonial proceedings, which specific

emphasis on permanent alimony and the same has been reiterated by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod

Patel reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724.

33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Jyot Maini (supra), while

discussing the husband's obligation to maintain the wife and the importance

of his financial capacity in deciding the quantum, observed under para 26

that:-

"26. Furthermore, the financial capacity of the husband is a critical factor in determining permanent alimony. The Court shall examine the husband's actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and any dependents he is legally obligated to support. His liabilities and financial commitments are also to be considered to ensure a balanced and fail maintenance award. The court must consider the husband's standard of living and the impact of inflation and high living costs. Even if the husband claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn, given his education and qualifications, is to be taken into account. The courts shall ensure that the relief granted is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved party was accustomed. The court's approach should be to balance all relevant factors to avoid maintenance amounts that are either excessively high or unduly low, ensuring that the dependent spouse can live with reasonable comfort post- separation."

18 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pravin Kumar Jain v.

Anju Jain reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678 has taken note of the

various judgments to clarify the position of law with regard to

determination of permanent alimony and the factors that need to be

considered in order to arrive at a just, fair, and reasonable amount of

permanent alimony. In para 31 it is held as under:

"31. There cannot be strict guidelines or a fixed formula for fixing the amount of permanent maintenance. The quantum of maintenance is subjective to each case and is dependent on various circumstances and factors. The Court needs to look into factors such as income of both the parties; conduct during the subsistence of marriage; their individual social and financial status; personal expenses of each of the parties; their individual capacities and duties to maintain their dependents; the quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the subsistence of the marriage; and such other similar factors. This position was laid down by this Court in Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar, and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal."

35. 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 in every two years.

36. 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

19 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance

for herself and the minor son. The Trial Court, by order dated 14.01.2010,

awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-

wife and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The appellant-wife then

instituted Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014,

directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per

month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son,

along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Trial Court, vide order

dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that the

respondent-husband had failed to prove cruelty. Aggrieved, the respondent

filed FAT No. 122 of 2015 before the High Court of Calcutta. During the

pendency of the appeal, the appellant-wife filed CAN No. 4505 of 2025

seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- for herself and Rs. 20,000/- for

the son, along with Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses. The High

Court, by order dated 14.05.2015, directed the respondent-husband to pay

interim 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; allowed the appellant-wife and their

son to continue residing in the said flat; and continue to pay permanent

20 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

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.

37. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the appellant-wife

approached the Hon'ble Apex Court.

38. 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.

39. The appellant-wife contended that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- per

month, which the High Court made final, was originally awarded as interim

maintenance. She submitted 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.

40. 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,

21 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

has a dependent family, and aged parents. The respondent-husband

contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially

dependent.

41. 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 living

and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial

support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.

42. 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.

22 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025

2026:JHHC:14747-DB

43. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court

was modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the

appellant-wife shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase

every two years, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the said order

is being quoted as under:

"7. Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.

8. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.

9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the 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."

44. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is

now re-adverting to the factual aspects of the instant case.

45. It is admitted fact that the marriage of appellant-wife and respondent-

husband was solemnized on 28.11.2019 according to Hindu rites and

customs prevailing in their society in presence of friends and relatives of

23 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

both the sides and the petitioner/ husband has filed the suit for divorce in

year 2023 i.e., after 04 years of marriage, on the ground of cruelty.

46. The suit filed for divorce by the petitioner-husband has been allowed,

and the learned Family Court directed to the petitioner/husband to pay Rs.

40,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony against which the appeal being

F.A No.05 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner/appellant husband

wherein the quantum of permanent alimony has been assailed by taking

ground that the learned Family Court has not applied the settled

connotation of law and arbitrarily decided the amount of permanent

alimony.

47. The respondent/ wife has also assailed the aforesaid order passed by

the family Court by filing the appeal being F.A. No.247 of 2024 wherein

the ground has been taken that learned Family Court while allowing the suit

filed the husband for dissolution of marriage has not given due weightage

to evidence of appellant wife and her mother and further the amount of

permanent alimony has been fixed in very less quantum without

considering the earning of petitioner/respondent husband and age of the

appellant/wife.

48. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant wife, on

instruction, has submitted that there is no chance of re-union since the

respondent-husband has solemnized second marriage.

49. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted that since the

respondent has solemnized second marriage and did not want to live with

her, as such the parties agreed for settlement by way of permanent alimony.

24 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025

2026:JHHC:14747-DB

50. Accordingly, affidavit has been filed on behalf of appellant-wife and

respondent/husband showing their income etc. However, in the affidavit

filed by the husband the factum of second marriage has been denied.

51. We have perused the affidavit filed by the appellant wife, wherein it

has been stated that since there is no scope and chance to reunion and

appellant is aged about 33-34 years having no employment or any earning

and she is dependent upon her parents and now the father of the appellant

has also died having no income the widow mother is there.

52. It has further been stated that in view of settled principle as laid down

by this Hon'ble Court also in F.A. No. 141 of 2023 considering the series of

judgment including Rajnesh Vs. Neha, the quantum of alimony has to be

properly extended to the appellant and at least 40% of earning which comes

to Rs. to 3.6 crores calculating at least up to age of 60 years and more so

the scope of enhance be opened as the respondent-husband has increase the

salary and income in due course and hence the minimum requirement i.e.

40% of his income may be provided appellant for her livelihood.

53. This Court has also perused the affidavit filed by the respondent-

husband, wherein he has annexed the pay-slip for the month of October,

2025, evidencing his monthly emoluments and financial capacity.

54. It has been stated in the affidavit at paragraph 6 that although the

respondent presently got Rs. 2,24,208/- per month and used to reside at

Pune on a rental house apart from that he has got other expenses and

presently his one parents are over aged and their responsibility is upon him

and is not in possession to save more/huge money.

55. It has further been stated that the present appellant/wife is the sole

child of her parents who has sufficient means and that can be inheritted by

25 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

the appellant being the sole legal heirs of her parents and apart from that

she is highly educated lady and so far as other properties as has been

mentioned in the affidavit filed by the wife, it is the property occupied by

his father or inherited from his grandfather and the respondent has no way

concerned with the said property at present.

56. This Court, taking into consideration, the salary of the respondent-

husband, is of the view that the respondent-husband has constant source of

income but the appellant-wife is to survive on the amount of interest to be

received from the amount of permanent alimony and the future inflation

etc.

57. Further it requires to refer herein that in maintenance proceedings it is

of primary importance that the income of the spouse is first assessed. The

process of determining maintenance cannot begin or end with assumptions

and it must rest on an assessment of the earning capacity of the person from

whom maintenance is sought. If both spouses are earning, the income of

each must be examined. However, where the wife is not employed or has

no independent source of income, the focus naturally shifts to the income of

the husband, which becomes the foundation for fixing the amount of

maintenance payable.

58. Such assessment of income may be of two kinds. In cases where

documentary evidence such as salary slips, bank statements, or income tax

returns are available, the Court can take the actual income as discernible

from the record. However, in many cases, husband either fail to disclose his

true income, conceal relevant details, or claim to be unemployed despite

indications to the contrary. In such circumstances, the Courts must make a

reasonable and fair assessment of the husband's income, taking into

26 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

account his educational qualifications, professional background, past

employment, lifestyle, bank transactions, and other material placed on

record.

59. Once the income, whether actual or notional, is determined, the

Family Court must then proceed to apportion the same among the

dependents, including the wife and any children, keeping in view their

reasonable needs and standard of living. Therefore, assessing income is the

first and most crucial step, as maintenance cannot be determined in

vacuum. Only after establishing what the earning spouse actually earns, or

can reasonably be expected to earn, can a just and proportionate amount be

fixed towards the sustenance of those who are entitled to be maintained.

60. The fact that the wife is earning some amount cannot, by itself, be a

ground to deny her claim for maintenance. In the case of Sunita

Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha: (2014) 16 SCC 715, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed that even if the wife is employed and earning,

that alone does not disentitle her to maintenance if her income is

insufficient to enable her to maintain herself with the standard of living that

she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. Maintenance, after all, is not a matter

of charity but of right - a continuing obligation flowing from the marital

relationship, which the husband cannot evade merely by pointing to the

wife's limited earning capacity.

61. Further, in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (supra), which has also

been referred to in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

categorically held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-

wife is immaterial while determining the quantum of maintenance. The

27 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025 2026:JHHC:14747-DB

responsibility to maintain a wife flows from the marital relationship itself

and cannot be shifted upon her parents, however well-off they may be.

62. The object of law of maintenance is precisely to prevent such

dependence. The grant of maintenance ensures that a woman is not forced

to rely on her parents or relatives for basic needs, but can live with dignity

and autonomy. Only when adequate maintenance is granted can she hope to

secure independent accommodation, meet her daily expenses and denying

or reducing maintenance on the assumption that her parents can support her

effectively undermines the very purpose of law of maintenance, which

seeks to protect a deserted or destitute spouse from financial helplessness.

The duty to maintain a wife rests primarily on the husband, in case she is

not earning for herself, and cannot be diluted on the ground that she is

presently living with her parents or that her parents have means to assist

her.

63. In every proceeding of determination of alimony, there are two sides

to a human story- that of the wife and that of the husband. Each brings forth

a version shaped by their experiences, grievances, and perceptions. It is the

duty of the Court to assess these narratives not mechanically but

pragmatically, and to arrive at a conclusion that is grounded in both

evidence and social reality.

64. Thus, the principle governing grant of permanent alimony is that it

must be fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the status of the parties,

the income and capacity of the husband, and the needs of the wife. The

Court cannot impose an amount which is beyond the paying capacity of the

husband, nor can it leave the wife without adequate financial security.

28 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025

2026:JHHC:14747-DB

65. The respondent husband has annexed his pay-slip for the month of

October 2025 as annexure-A to the affidavit wherefrom it is evident that

net payment of respondent husband is Rs. 2,24,208/- per month.

66. Therefore, taking into consideration the life expectancy of a female in

India which is 70 years approximately, the permanent alimony is to be

calculated for next 38 years as the appellant-wife who is 32 years of age.

67. This Court, considering the submissions advanced on behalf of parties

and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, has

again perused the affidavit filed by the respondent-husband and found there

from that the respondent's monthly income is about Rs.2,24,208/- whereas

on the other hand, the appellant-wife has to survive for his livelihood solely

on the amount of permanent alimony so given by the respondent-husband.

68. Thus, while deciding permanent alimony the

Court should consider the life expectancy of the wife, 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.

69. This Court is conscious that the respondent-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 appellant-wife, she would have enjoyed

during subsistence of the marriage as per income and status of her husband,

the respondent herein.

29 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025

2026:JHHC:14747-DB

70. It needs to refer herein that there is no rigid mathematical formula to

determine maintenance. However, the Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey

Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury (Supra) observed that around 25 per

cent of the husband's net salary may serve as a reasonable benchmark,

though this is not a universal rule. Courts generally assess the paying

spouse's "free income", allowing deductions only for statutory liabilities

such as income tax or provident fund, while disregarding voluntary

expenses like equated monthly installments (EMIs) on loans or insurance

premiums.

71. Considering the monthly salary of the respondent-husband at

Rs.2,24,208/- his obligations, and the reasonable requirements of the

appellant-wife and average life expectancy, this Court is of the view that a

lump sum of ₹70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) would be just, fair,

and reasonable for sustenance of the appellant/respondent/wife, who has no

other source of income than the alimony so received by the appellant-

husband.

72. This amount balances the financial capacity of the husband with the

legitimate entitlement of the wife to secure the future of the appellant-wife,

who has no other source of income other than the amount of alimony so

received from the respondent-husband for her livelihood and sustenance.

73. In such view of the matter, the appellant/petitioner/husband is directed

to pay a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs [Seventy Lakhs] as one-time permanent

alimony to the appellant respondent/wife. The said amount shall be paid by

the appellant/petitioner/husband in four 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 two months from today.

30 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025

2026:JHHC:14747-DB

74. This Court, considering the factual aspect involved in the case and

particularly the fact that due to financial crunch the survival of the

appellant-wife may not get disturbed, grants liberty to the wife that if the

amount is not credited to her account, as per the direction passed by this

Court, the appellant-wife will be at liberty to approach the court of law in

accordance with law.

75. This Court, however, hope and trust that the husband will not invite

such situation and will abide by the direction so passed by this Court for

permanent alimony in favour of appellant-wife.

76. Accordingly, the order dated 29.08.2024 and the decree signed on

06.09.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Latehar,

in Original Suit No. 54 of 2023, stand modified to the aforesaid extent

alone.

77. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the instant appeals

stand disposed of and decreed in the above terms.

78. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)

Jharkhand High Court Dated: 12/05/2026 KNR/A.F.R.

Uploaded On:14/05/2026

31 F.A. No. 247 of 2024 with FA 05 of 2025