Permanent alimony determination must balance parties' financial conditions, standard of living, and relevant factors, with subjective discretion exercised by courts based on evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. At the outset, it needs to refer herein that for the matrimonial dispute arisen between the husband and wife, series of litigations have been filed by the parties and most of them have been filed the appellant-wife, who appeared in person and conducted her cases, though before the learned family court she was offered for free legal aid, as would be evident from order dated 27.03.2019 passed in Original Suit No. 76 of 2018, but she chosen to appear in person and conduct her case on her own. Even on the issue of ‘permanent alimony’ after getting the decree of divorce, which was filed by the appellant-wife, the appellant-wife has approached before this Court for the third time besides filing other litigations. The first one is F.A. No. 15 of 2021; the second is F.A. No. 116 of 2022 and the third is F.A. 64 of 2025 the present one, which has been filed by the appellant-wife questioning the order passed by the learned Family Court.

2. Besides that, Civil Revision No. 20 of 2019 was filed before this Court for enhancement of temporary alimony by the appellant-wife. Further, against the remand order passed in F.A. No. 116 of 2022, the appellant-wife moved before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP No. 17275 of 2024. However, after remand of the matter [Original Suit No. 76 of 2018] by this Court, the learned Family Court passed order in Original Suit No. 76 of 2018, since there was no order of stay by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

3. The appellant-wife against order/judgment dated 17.02.2025 and decree dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, on remand, has filed the instant appeal being FA No. 64 of 2025. But in the SLP, being SLP No. 17275 of 2024, no step has been taken by the appellant- in-person, which has been taken note of by this Court in order dated 6^th August, 2025 and 12^th August, 2025, and no order has been brought showing any order of stay, however, learned counsel for the appellant has undertaken before this Court that she would withdraw the said SLP on the date fixed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as such this Court proceeded to hear the matter.

4. Furthermore, a very eccentric allegation of murder of son by his own father [respondent herein] has been leveled by the appellant-wife by filing Argora P.S. Case No. 180 of 2017 and after lodging of FIR, on the allegation of unfair investigation in the said case, the appellant-wife moved before this Court making a prayer for CBI Investigation by filing W.P. (Cr.) No. 419 of 2017, which was disposed of by this Court, as the State took decision to investigate the matter by CBI.

5. The CBI submitted report stating therein that allegation leveled against the respondent-husband and other persons, who were made accused by the appellant-wife in the First Information Report, was found baseless. Against the report submitted by the CBI, the appellant-wife filed protest petition in R.C. Case No. 01 of 2021, which was rejected. However, in the report so submitted by the CBI, the Investigating team of CBI have reported that the appellant-wife and her father put undue pressure upon them by calling 25-30 times to make accused the father and uncle in the accident case, for which undue reward has been offered to the CBI Officials.

Prayer:

6. The instant appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, is directed against order/judgment dated 17.02.2025 and decree dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 76 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned court ha