2026:CGHC:12427-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 3 of 2024

1 - Tarachand Sahu S/o Shri Kaushal Prasad, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bhothiya, P.S. And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

--- Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Smt. Akansha Sahu W/o Tarachand Sahu D/o Shri Itwari Ram Sahu, Aged About 31 Years Community Health Center Sakti, P.S. And Tah. Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s)

FA(MAT) No. 48 of 2024

1 - Smt. Akanksha Sahu W/o Tarachand Sahu (D/o Itwari Ram Sahu) , Aged About 29 Years R/o Community Health Center, Sakti Police Station And Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Chmpa (Now District Sakti) Chhattisgarh.

---Appellant(s)

Versus

1 - Tarachand Sahu S/o Kaushal Prasad Sahu, Caste Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bhothiya, Police Station And Police Station And Tahsil Jaijaipur District Janjgir Chmpa (Now District Sakti) Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

For Appellant/Husband : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/Wife : Mr. K.K. Pandey and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocates DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board

16.03.2026

1. Since common question of law and facts is involved in both of these appeals and since both of them have been filed being aggrieved by a common order, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The appellant/husband as well as the respondent/wife, both have questioned the impugned judgment and decree dated 15/12/2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Link Court Family Court Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit No. 04-A/2021 whereby application for divorce filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1955”) has been granted and the Family Court has awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/- in favour of the respondent/wife along with monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- till her remarriage.

3. At the outset, Mr. Ravindra Sharma as well as Mr. K.K.

Pandey, learned counsel for the parties would submit that so far as decree for divorce is concerned, both the parties have accepted and agreed to it and they have only questioned the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of grant of permanent alimony and monthly maintenance in favour of the respondent/wife.

4. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/husband, would submit that once permanent alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/- had been awarded in favour of the respondent/wife, the Family Court then could not have granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- in her favour till her remarriage, as such, the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of grant of monthly maintenance in favour of the respondent/wife is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent/wife, would submit that though the Family Court has rightly granted permanent alimony as well as monthly maintenance in favour of the respondent/wife, however, the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- as permanent alimony as well as the sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance is rather on the lower side and both deserve to be enhanced.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. The question that arises for consideration herein is, “whether the Family Court is justified in granting monthly maintenance after having already granted permanent alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/- in favour of the respondent/wife ?”

8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the provision contained under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1955, which states 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