Jharkhand HC Awards ₹90 Lakh One-Time Alimony, Rules Husband's Loan EMIs Cannot Reduce Maintenance Obligation
A Division Bench dissolves a marriage and directs a contractual government doctor to pay ₹90 lakh in permanent alimony, holding that loan repayments for asset creation cannot erode a husband's maintenance duty.
The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in a Division Bench judgment pronounced on 6 August 2026, dissolved a marriage that a Family Court had refused to end and simultaneously awarded ₹90 lakh as one-time permanent alimony — ₹40 lakh to the wife and ₹25 lakh each for the couple's two minor children. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, who authored the judgment, and Justice Sanjay Prasad together held that a personal loan of ₹38 lakh availed by the husband during the pendency of the appeal, generating a monthly EMI of ₹81,771, could not be used to diminish his liability under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The bench applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324 and its more recent decision in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, (2026) INSC 370 to reach that conclusion.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Tarun, a contractual Medical Officer posted at Sadar Hospital, Garhwa, had filed Original Suit No. 78 of 2020 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa, seeking dissolution of his marriage to Anita Kumari under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty.
The Family Court, by judgment dated 19 February 2025 and decree signed on 7 March 2025, dismissed the suit on contest, finding that Dr. Tarun had failed to prove the ingredients of cruelty against his wife. He appealed to the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, filing First Appeal No. 133 of 2025.
Notice was issued to Anita Kumari by order dated 7 November 2025. She appeared and contested the appeal. At that stage both parties expressed willingness to explore reconciliation, and by order dated 28 January 2026 the matter was referred to JHALSA, Ranchi, for mediation. The court also directed that travelling expenses of ₹25,000 be paid to the wife upon her appearance, as had been noted in an earlier order of 26 August 2025.
Mediation Fails; Settlement Attempt Collapses on Quantum
Mediation did not proceed smoothly. By the time the matter came up on 10 March 2026, the appellant's counsel submitted that Anita Kumari had not been attending regularly. Her counsel explained that on one occasion she could not participate because of her child's examination. Both sides jointly asked for an extension since a settlement still appeared possible, and the court allowed a further six weeks.
On 5 May 2026, the appellant offered a one-time settlement of ₹40,00,000 along with bearing all educational expenses of both children until the son obtained employment and meeting the daughter's marriage expenses. The respondent-wife rejected the offer as insufficient for the sustenance of herself, a 14-year-old son (Master Kislay Tarun) and a 12-year-old daughter (Kumari Tanya Tarun).
The bench then directed both parties to file disclosure affidavits in terms of Rajnesh v. Neha and called for the trial court record. After affidavits were filed, full arguments on permanent alimony were heard on 6 July 2026 and the order was reserved.
The Financial Picture the Bench Examined
The husband's affidavit disclosed a gross monthly salary of ₹1,61,260, with deductions of ₹1,28,252 towards loan repayments, leaving a stated net take-home of ₹33,008. He contended that Maa Parwati Hospital was owned by one Sanjiv Kumar Singh (examined as P.W.3) and that he attended only as an on-call doctor after his government duty hours. He also stated that land valued at ₹22,00,000 purchased at Garhwa was acquired for construction of a hospital under a charitable trust, which was still under construction, and that land purchased in 2005 by his father remained undivided joint-family property.
The wife's counsel countered that Dr. Tarun operated a private pathology laboratory and diagnostic centre and ran a private medical clinic alongside his government engagement, earning substantial additional income. She submitted that Anita Kumari was a housewife with no independent income, no business, and no agricultural resources, and that the two children were entirely dependent on their father for day-to-day needs, education, food, clothing, and medical care.
A significant disclosure emerged from paragraph 3 of the husband's affidavit: he had availed a personal loan of ₹38,00,000 from Axis Bank, disbursed on 3 June 2025 — during the pendency of the appeal — generating a monthly deduction of ₹81,771 from his salary. No disclosure was made that this loan was contracted to meet any essential, necessary, or obligatory financial requirement.
Why the Bench Disregarded the Loan EMI
The bench examined whether loan repayments for asset creation could lawfully reduce the husband's disposable income for the purpose of fixing alimony. It drew on Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, (2026) INSC 370, where the Supreme Court held that deductions arising from loan repayments that contribute towards the creation of assets
The Jharkhand bench applied that ratio directly: since the ₹38 lakh loan taken by Dr. Tarun during the appeal's pendency carried no explanation of essential necessity, the monthly deduction of ₹81,771 could not be permitted to operate to the detriment of Anita Kumari in fixing permanent alimony. The bench held that voluntary financial liabilities incurred for asset-generating purposes are capital investments, not unavoidable expenditures, and cannot take precedence over the statutory obligation to maintain a spouse.
The bench also addressed the broader principle that courts must assess not only actual income but earning capacity. Where a husband's documentary income appears reduced by deliberate financial commitments, maintenance may be fixed on potential earnings rather than artificially diminished net income.
The Governing Legal Framework Under Section 25
Justice Prasad set out the text of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which empowers a matrimonial court, at the time of passing a decree or at any subsequent time, to order gross or periodic payments to either spouse for maintenance and support, with regard to the respondent's income and property, the applicant's income and property, the conduct of the parties, and other circumstances. The bench noted that the provision is designed to remove the hardship of a spouse with no independent income sufficient for sustenance, and that the court may grant alimony while disposing of the main application even without a separate application.
The bench drew on a line of Supreme Court authority to frame its approach. From Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112, it extracted the principle that no fixed formula can be laid down and that the amount must allow the wife to live in reasonable comfort consistent with the standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home, without being so excessive as to affect the other party. From U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114, it reaffirmed that mathematical exactitude is impossible and that the husband's financial capacity and the parties' social status are the governing considerations.
The bench also cited Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 for the proposition that Section 25(2) permits variation of an alimony order on change of circumstances, and noted that the 1976 amendment to Section 25(3) replaced a mandatory obligation to rescind with a discretionary power, conferring flexibility on courts even where unchastity is established.
From Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 — the judgment which had prompted the disclosure affidavits in this very case — the bench quoted the Supreme Court's statement that the objective of interim or permanent alimony is to ensure
The bench also referred to Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259, in which the Supreme Court recently enhanced alimony with a provision for increase every two years, reinforcing that alimony must track inflation and the parties' changing circumstances.
Calculating the Quantum
The bench identified the central question as what permanent alimony would meet the needs of the wife, son, and daughter based on the standard of living they would have enjoyed had the marriage subsisted.
Anita Kumari is 40 years old. The bench took life expectancy of 72 years, meaning she would need to be supported for approximately 32 years. Her son is 14 and daughter 12, both entirely dependent on their father. The wife's counsel had argued that applying a multiplier on one-third of the husband's monthly salary would yield more than ₹1 crore, but moderated the claim to ₹40 lakh for the wife and ₹25 lakh each for the son and daughter.
The bench accepted those figures as just, fair, and reasonable. It recorded that Anita Kumari has no source of income other than whatever alimony she receives, and that the children's education, medical treatment, and upbringing depend entirely on the amount awarded. Dr. Tarun's gross salary of ₹1,61,260 per month — with the loan EMIs set aside as non-deductible for this purpose — and his engagement at the private clinic and pathology laboratory supported the capacity to pay the total sum of ₹90,00,000.
The bench was conscious that Dr. Tarun also has personal obligations, but held that his primary duty was to maintain the standard of life the respondent-wife, son, and daughter would have enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage.
Order
The Division Bench quashed and set aside the judgment dated 19 February 2025 and decree dated 7 March 2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original Suit No. 78 of 2020. The marriage between Dr. Rakesh Kumar Tarun and Anita Kumari stands dissolved, subject to full payment of the alimony directed.
Dr. Tarun is directed to pay ₹40,00,000 to Anita Kumari as permanent alimony, ₹25,00,000 for the son, and ₹25,00,000 for the daughter — a total of ₹90,00,000 — in four equal instalments within 12 months from the date of the order. The first instalment is due within one month of 6 August 2026.
The ₹25 lakh each allocated to the son and daughter must be placed in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank in their respective names, for use towards education, marriage, and allied purposes.
The rights of the son and daughter to inheritance and to any claim over ancestral or other property remain unaffected and may be pursued in accordance with law.
The wife is granted liberty to approach the court if any instalment is not credited to her account as directed. Any pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.