Case at a Glance
The Family Court, Dhanbad, granted a husband divorce for cruelty. On the wife's appeal, mediation failed and the parties argued only on permanent alimony. The husband offered ₹7,500 a month, claiming his business had ended, but his income tax returns showed substantial receipts. The Jharkhand High Court held that the wife, without income, was significantly dependent on alimony and fixed ₹30 lakh as a one-time payment, affirming the divorce subject to that payment.
Background
The parties married on 5 July 2018 at Bhagalpur. Their accounts of the short period together differ, but the wife has lived at her parents' home since May 2019. Complaints followed on both sides, including a case filed by the wife under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. In 2021 the husband filed Original Suit No. 525 of 2021, alleging cruelty and desertion and also making a disputed allegation about the wife's health.
On 5 September 2023 the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, held that the husband had proved cruelty and granted divorce. The wife appealed. Mediation through the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority failed, and the wife sought a one-time settlement, saying she had no income and that the husband had remarried, which he denied. The parties argued only on alimony.
The Question Before the Court
What permanent alimony should the wife receive, given the husband's disputed income?
Income on Paper Matters
The Court explained that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows permanent alimony having regard to both parties' income, property and conduct, and that no fixed formula applies. It relied on Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, Vinny Parmvir Parmar, U. Sree, Rajnesh v. Neha, Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain and Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan.
Although the husband said his business had ended five years earlier and he earned little from tuition, his tax returns showed gross receipts of about ₹28 lakh, ₹19 lakh and ₹32 lakh in the last three assessment years, with taxable income of about ₹6.46 lakh in the latest. The Court found he had a constant source of income and that the wife was significantly dependent on alimony. Using her age and life expectancy, and noting that his ₹7,500-a-month offer would amount to about ₹30 lakh over her lifetime, it fixed ₹30 lakh as a lump sum, payable in three equal instalments within 12 months, and affirmed the divorce subject to payment.
What the Court Held
- No fixed formula governs alimony; income, needs, status and conduct are weighed.
- The husband's tax returns showed a constant source of income despite his claims.
- The wife, without income, was significantly dependent on alimony.
- ₹30 lakh was fixed as one-time permanent alimony, payable in three instalments within 12 months; the divorce was affirmed subject to payment.
Why It Matters
- Tax returns can defeat a spouse's claim of reduced income.
- Courts may convert a monthly offer into a lump sum over life expectancy.
- The divorce decree can be made conditional on payment of alimony.
For Litigants / For Counsel
For litigants
- Disclose income honestly; tax returns will be examined.
- A lump sum may be more secure than monthly payments over decades.
For counsel
- Obtain and file the other side's income tax returns.
- Use life expectancy calculations to argue for a lump sum.
Key Takeaways
- The divorce was affirmed, subject to payment.
- Alimony fixed at ₹30 lakh.
- Tax returns showed real income.
- Three instalments within a year.
FAQs
How did the Court arrive at ₹30 lakh?
It considered the husband's tax returns and the wife's age and life expectancy, and treated a lump sum as fair.
Was the cruelty finding re-examined?
No. The parties argued only on alimony, and the divorce was affirmed.
When must the money be paid?
In three equal instalments within 12 months, the first within two months.
Conclusion
The Jharkhand High Court looked past the husband's claimed loss of business to his tax returns and fixed a lump sum that gives the wife lasting security.
Practical takeaway: documented income, not oral claims, drives alimony decisions.