Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 604

2026 JHHC 14740
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad, JJ.
Sandhya Kumari - Appellant
Versus
Mithilesh Kumar, S/O Chandeshwar Prasad Shah - Respondent
First Appeal No. 156 of 2025
Decided On : 12-05-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate, Mr. Ishan Ashish, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate, Mr. Alok Kumar Verma, Advocate

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nikhil Ranjan, Ishan Ashish
For the Respondents: Rajendra Krishna, Alok Kumar Verma

No fixed mathematical formula exists for permanent alimony. It must be determined by assessing the paying spouse's actual income, the dependent's reasonable needs, established standard of living, and socio-economic variables like inflation and life expectancy to ensure the dependent spouse avoids destitution while maintaining a balance of equity.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(i-b) and 25 - Family Court Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Divorce and permanent alimony - Quantum of maintenance - No rigid mathematical formula exists for fixing permanent alimony - Standard of living and financial capacity of both parties are paramount factors - Court must balance interests to prevent destitution while avoiding amounts that become oppressive for the paying spouse - Life expectancy and inflationary costs are material factors when arriving at a just and reasonable lump sum payment. (Paras 33, 40, 41, 70, 72)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Determination of permanent alimony - Court is entitled to adjudicate the issue of maintenance even when the appeal is not contested on the merits of the divorce decree - Financial disclosures and income assessment of the parties are critical to fixing a sustenance amount that ensures the dignity of the dependent spouse. (Paras 39, 62, 63, 69)

Facts of the case:
A decree of divorce was granted by the court below on grounds of cruelty and desertion in an ex parte proceeding. The spouse challenged the decree in an appeal. During the appellate process, the parties consented to the dissolution of marriage but could not reach a consensus regarding the quantum of permanent alimony. The appellant sought a higher amount, citing the rising cost of living, while the respondent claimed financial incapacity. The court evaluated income affidavits and the necessity of providing for the appellant's future sustenance.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that an amount reflecting a balance between the paying capacity of the spouse and the living requirements of the dependent was necessary. Based on income assessments, life expectancy, and economic factors like inflation, the court fixed the permanent alimony at a consolidated sum payable in installments.

Issues: The primary issue was the determination of a just and fair quantum of permanent alimony under the governing legislation, considering the income of the paying spouse, socio-economic factors, and the life expectancy of the dependent spouse.

Ratio Decidendi: There is no straitjacket formula for alimony; it must be calculated to ensure the dependent spouse avoids destitution and maintains a standard of living consistent with marital status, provided the award is not excessively burdensome to the paying party.

Result: Appeal disposed of; divorce decree affirmed, subject to payment of Rs. 25 lakhs as permanent alimony.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background leading to the ex parte divorce decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. mediation attempts and negotiations over permanent alimony during the appeal. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
3. parties' contentions regarding alimony and settlement instead of merits. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. determination of the scope of appellate review limited to alimony quantum. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. statutory application of section 25 hma and judicial precedent on alimony. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
6. evidence-based assessment of income capacity for maintenance determination. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
7. quantification of permanent alimony balancing financial capacity and reasonable needs. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
8. final order affirming divorce decree subject to payment of fixed alimony. (Para 79 , 80 , 81)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.01.2024 and decree signed on 12.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 837 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant-wife, has been allowed.

Factual Matrix

2. The respondent-husband, on the ground of cruelty and desertion, had filed an application under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b), of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court for a decree of divorce against his lawfully wedded wife and the same was numbered as the Original Suit No. 837 of 2023.

3. The case was admitted for hearing.

4. Upon notice, the appellant-wife did not appear in the suit proceeding and, therefore, the case proceeded ex parte.

5. The learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the pleading made by the respondent-husband in the plaint.

6. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the respondent-husband and taking into consideration the material available on record, has framed only one issue for adjudication of the lis, which is being referred as under:-

“Whether the marriage solemnized between plaintiff and defendant/respondent is to be dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion or not?”

7. Thereafter, the case proceeded for evidence during which the respondent-husband has examined three witnesses including himself as well as exhibited some documents.

8. Since it was an ex parte proceeding, there is neither any oral nor any documentary evidence on the record for rebutting and contradicting the claim as sought by the respondent-husband against the appellant-wife.

9. The learned Principal Judge, Family court, after appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of respondent-husband, came to the conclusion that the respondent-husband, has been able to prove and substantiate the factum of cruelty meted out to him by the defendant-wife, the appellant herein, as such it was held that the husband, the respondent herein, is entitled to get a decree of divorce, against which, the instant appeal has been preferred by the wife-appellant.

10. The respondent-husband has appeared and filed counter affidavit dated 15.01.2026 in this appeal wherein he has stated that he is ready to settle the present dispute with the appellant-wife and he is ready to pay Rs.8,00,000/- as settlement amount to the appellant-wife.

11. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 13.01.2026 and on that date learned counsel for the respondent-husband, on instruction, has submitted that the respondent-husband is ready to deposit Rs.10 lakhs in this Court within four weeks.

12. On the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 604

Cases Referred (6)