Jharkhand HC Fixes Rs 30 Lakh Lump-Sum Alimony for Wife After Husband's Remarriage Bars Reunion
The Jharkhand High Court, finding reunion impossible after the husband remarried, fixed Rs 30 lakh permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for an unemployed wife aged 28.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad, has awarded Rs 30,00,000 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) as a one-time permanent alimony to a wife from the Latehar district whose divorce petition had been decreed by the Family Court below. The bench pronounced its order on 20 July 2026 in First Appeal No. 201 of 2025, disposing of the wife's appeal against the Family Court's decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. Because the husband had solemnised a second marriage, the court did not examine the merits of the divorce decree and confined itself entirely to fixing permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The amount is payable in four equal instalments within twelve months, with the first instalment due within two months of the order.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The parties were married on 12 February 2017 at Village Mail, Police Station Manika, District Latehar, in accordance with Adivasi (Oraon) custom. The respondent-husband filed Original Suit No. 28 of 2021 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Latehar on 23 July 2021 — roughly four years after the marriage — seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Both sides filed written statements and examined five witnesses each. The Family Court, after appreciating the evidence, held that the husband had proved cruelty and desertion and granted the decree of divorce by judgment dated 22 November 2022, with the decree signed on 6 December 2022. The wife-appellant challenged that judgment before the High Court.
When the matter came up before the Division Bench on 23 April 2026, the court noted that the husband had solemnised a second marriage after the divorce decree, making reunion of the parties impossible. The bench accordingly directed both parties to file affidavits disclosing their income, movable and immovable assets, in line with the Supreme Court's directions in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, so that the question of permanent alimony could be decided without going into the merits of the impugned judgment.
What the Affidavits Disclosed
The appellant-wife filed her affidavit on 10 June 2026. She stated that she is unemployed and assists her mother at a roadside vegetable stall, earning a seasonal income of Rs 200 to Rs 300 per day.
The respondent-husband filed his affidavit on 25 June 2026. He disclosed that he is employed as a Constable with a gross monthly salary of Rs 66,097 and a net pay of Rs 40,354. Monthly deductions from his salary include Rs 21,883 towards a home loan, Rs 2,350 towards ELI, and Rs 3,000 towards PPF. He stated that Rs 18,000 per month was already being deducted from his salary and paid directly to the wife as maintenance and arrears pursuant to an earlier court order. He also confirmed that he had solemnised the second marriage on 11 January 2025, more than two years after the divorce decree of 22 November 2022.
Despite the court interacting with both parties, no mutual consensus on the quantum of alimony was reached. The husband pleaded financial incapacity; the wife's counsel stated she had no independent source of income to survive and sought a one-time settlement.
The Legal Framework Applied
The bench set out the text of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which empowers any court exercising jurisdiction under the Act to order the respondent to pay the applicant a gross sum or monthly sum, having regard to both spouses' income and property, the conduct of the parties, and other circumstances, secured by a charge on immovable property if necessary.
The court drew on several Supreme Court decisions to frame its approach. From Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200, it noted that Sub-section (2) of Section 25 allows the court to vary, modify, or rescind an alimony order on a change in circumstances, and that Sub-section (3) was amended with effect from 27 May 1976 to make rescission on proof of unchastity discretionary rather than mandatory.
From Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112, the bench recalled that the court must fix an amount sufficient for the wife to live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life when she lived with the husband, while not making the amount so excessive as to affect the husband's living condition.
From U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114, the bench affirmed that no arithmetic formula can be adopted because there cannot be mathematical exactitude; the amount depends on the status of the parties, their respective social needs, and the husband's financial capacity and obligations.
The bench gave particular weight to Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, quoting the Supreme Court's direction 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.” The factors listed in that judgment — status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife, whether she is educated or professionally qualified, whether she has independent income, the standard of living in the matrimonial home, and the husband's actual income and liabilities — guided the bench's analysis.
The court also referred to Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724, which held that the husband's financial capacity is a critical factor and that his ability to earn, given his education and qualifications, must be taken into account even if he claims no income.
From Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678, the bench noted that the quantum of maintenance is subjective and depends on income of both parties, conduct during the marriage, individual social and financial status, personal expenses, and the quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the marriage.
The bench also cited Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, for the proposition that a wife's limited earning capacity does not disentitle her to maintenance if it is insufficient to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. On the same point, it drew on Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801, to hold that the financial position of the wife's parents is immaterial; the duty to maintain flows from the marital relationship itself.
On the process of income assessment, the bench stated that maintenance cannot begin or end with assumptions. Where documentary evidence such as salary slips, bank statements, or income tax returns is available, the court takes actual income as its basis. Where such material is absent or concealed, a fair notional assessment is required based on the spouse's qualifications, lifestyle, and background.
How the Bench Calculated the Alimony
The court noted that the appellant-wife is 28 years of age. Taking the life expectancy of a woman in India at approximately 70 years, it reasoned that the permanent alimony must provide for approximately the next 42 years of her life. She would survive solely on the interest earned from the lump-sum amount, and future inflation had to be factored in.
As a reference point, the Family Court had already awarded maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month in Original Maintenance Case No. 9 of 2020. The bench computed that Rs 10,000 per month over 42 years would amount to approximately Rs 50,00,000. It then weighed this against the husband's actual paying capacity.
The respondent-husband's gross monthly salary is Rs 66,097. The court acknowledged the benchmark noted in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury that approximately 25 per cent of the husband's net salary may serve as a reasonable reference point, while also observing that voluntary expenses such as EMIs on home loans are generally not deducted when assessing the husband's free income for maintenance purposes — only statutory liabilities such as income tax and provident fund contributions are typically set aside.
Balancing the husband's capacity to pay against the wife's need for a secure future with no other source of income, the bench fixed Rs 30,00,000 as a lump-sum amount that is “just, fair, and reasonable” as permanent alimony. The court was conscious that the husband must also survive and has other obligations, but held that it is his duty to maintain the standard of life the wife would have enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage.
The bench also noted the Supreme Court's decision in Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259, where permanent alimony was enhanced and made subject to an increase every two years, as part of the broader jurisprudential trend of reassessing alimony in light of inflation and the dependent spouse's continuing needs.
Order
The Division Bench affirmed the order and judgment dated 22 November 2022 and the decree signed on 6 December 2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Latehar in Original Suit No. 28 of 2021. The marriage stands dissolved.
The court directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs 30,00,000 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) as permanent alimony to the appellant-wife in four equal instalments within a period of 12 months from the date of the order. The first instalment is to be paid within two months of 20 July 2026.
The court granted liberty to the appellant-wife to approach a court of law in accordance with law if the amounts are not credited to her account as directed.
The appeal stands disposed of and decreed in the above terms. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.