Kanak Kumari Gupta vs Dinesh Kumar Gupta

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, is directed against part of order/judgment dated 17.05.2023 and decree dated 23.05.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara in Original (Matrimonial) Suit No. 33 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner under Section 13(1)(i-a),(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage has been allowed and direction was passed upon the respondent-husband to pay Rs. 10 lacs as permanent alimony to the petitioner-wife. However, part of the impugned order by which the marriage has been dissolved has not been challenged by the appellant-wife.

The brief facts of the case, as taken note in the impugned order, needs to be referred herein as under:

The marriage between the parties was solemnized with each other on 20.06.2018 according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies at Hazaribagh. The respondent-husband is employed as office assistant at Jharkhand Bijali Vitaran Nigam Ltd, office Kokar Bariatu, Ranchi which is situated within RIMS campus and he was getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month after deduction. Due to the demand of the respondent and his family members, petitioner's father had to give Rs. 12 lac cash, 10 bharis of golden ornaments, household articles worth Rs. 2 lac to the respondent and the entire expenses of the marriage were also borne by the petitioner's father. After the marriage the petitioner started leading conjugal life with the respondent and for about one month everything was going on smoothly but thereafter the respondent and his parents started demanding Rs. 5 lacs as dowry and torturing her. When the conduct of the respondent and his family members became unbearable, she told the respondent that she would go back to her father's house but in order to pacify her for the time being, the respondent brought her to Ranchi at the place of his work. After sometimes the respondent again started pressuring the petitioner to ask her father to give Rs. 10 lac for purchase of flat at Ranchi and when she refused, she was assaulted. On 10.08.2019 the respondent's parents and other family members came to the rented house of the petitioner at Ranchi and threatened the petitioner for not asking her father for payment of money to purchase flat. On protest, they assaulted her causing fracture in her right hand but she was not taken to any doctor for treatment. The petitioner informed her father and requested him to take her back to save her life and then her brother went there on 11.08.2019 but on seeing him the respondent became furious and again caused injury to her right hand and threw them out of his house keeping all her ornaments. The petitioner and his brother came back to Jamtara and lodged a criminal case against the respondent and others being Mahila P.S Case No. 45 of 2019. The respondent never showed any interest in resuming the conjugal life with the petitioner. He also filed a case u/s 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family court, Ranchi against the petitioner being original suit no. 644 of 2019. On the transfer application of the petitioner, the Hon'ble Court transferred the case in Family Court, Jamtara but the petitioner did not pursue the same and therefore the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Since 11.08.2019 the parties have no cohabitation with each other nor they lived together. In the above circumstances the respondent's conducts has caused mental agony and act of cruelty and he is also guilty of willfully deserting the petitioner for the last 18 months continuously.

On being noticed, the respondent-husband appeared before the Court and filed written statement stating therein that there is no cause of action for filing the suit. Statement has been made that it is admitted fact that the respondent is employee of Jharkhand Bijali Bitaran Nigam Ltd but withdrawal of amount of salary as mentioned in the plaint is not correct. The respondent submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized without any demand. Further statement has been made that the petitioner was not willing to live with her in-laws at village Chatti Bariatu and she did not want to perform the household affairs and for the said reason she started living with her husband at his working place at Ranchi. The respondent submits that the petitioner's hand was fractured due to fall in the bathroom and all the medical expenses was borne by the respondent and thereafter the petitioner came to her father's house at Jamtara and filed case on all sorts of false and concocted allegations. The respondent and his other family members appeared before Mahila Police, Jamtara but the petitioner's father did not agree to se2nd his daughter back hence Mahila P.S Case No. 45 of 2019 was registered. It is stated that it is the petitioner-wife who did not obey her in-laws and used to utter filthy languages to them. Since after the marriage she started showing her unwillingness to lead conjugal life with the respondent and due to her willful desertion, respondent has been suffering from mental agony since long. On the aforesaid ground, prayer has been made to dismiss the suit.

The learned family court, on the basis of pleading available on record, framed the issues, and evidences were led on behalf of parties.

The learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleading available on record, decreed the suit on contest against the respondent Dinesh Kumar Gupta and the marital tie between the parties was dissolved. Further, the respondent was directed to give total Rs. 10 lacs as permanent alimony to the petitioner out of which he has already given Rs. 8 lacs at the time of grant of his anticipatory bail by the order of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court and now he shall give remaining Rs. 2 lacs only.

Aggrieved with the quantum of permanent alimony, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner-wife who is the appellant herein.

The learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the learned family court while allowing the suit filed by the petitioner-wife though has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-wife was subjected to cruelty and desertion and thereby awarded the decree of divorce but while awarding permanent alimony did not consider the age of the petitioner-appellant; the salary of the respondent and other factors.

Further submission has been made that while awarding the amount of permanent did not consider the fact about the transactions done at the time of marriage and even did not afford opportunity to adduce documentary evidence for the statement made against the ornaments and articles and other expensed done in the marriage.

Further submission has been made that it is settled principle of law that while awarding permanent alimony the income and assets of the parties as also the earning capacity and standard of living and age of the spouse is to be taken into consideration but from bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it would be clear that without going into or discussing these factors, the quantum of alimony has been fixed which requires enhancement.

Referring to the pay-slip of the respondent husband, who is working as office assistant at Jharkhand Bijali Vitaran Nigam Ltd, office Kokar Bariatu, Ranchi, submission has been made that he was earning more than Rs.54,000/- in the year 2024 and as of now his salary must have been revised. Further submission has been made that even the provident fund and other savings are there for the respondent‟s future necessity. But the life of the appellant is at a very pitiable condition.

Further submission has been made that the salary of the respondent would increase after every six months on increase of Dearness Allowance and every year on account of annual increment and further there will be huge amount of hike in salary due to forthcoming Pay-Commission(s) and promotion(s)/ACP/MACP and even after retirement the petitioner-husband would get huge amount of retiral benefit as also the pension but the respondent-wife has to survive on the interest earned on the permanent alimony granted in favour of the respondent. Therefore, considering the life expectancy and the fact that the appellant-wife has to survive on the interest earned from that amount, the amount of permanent alimony may be enhanced, so that she can live in reasonable comfort considering the status and mode of life she would have used to live when she lived with respondent-husband.

The learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that since there is no consideration of these facts by learned trial court, as such the impugned judgment requires interference by this Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-husband has submitted that other than salary no other source of income is with the respondent-husband.

Further submission has been made that respondent is a salaried person working with Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and is solely dependent on his monthly salary and out of the gross salary there is deduction of provident fund, income tax, professional tax and other deductions and after that he receives a meager amount. Besides that, the respondent has other family obligations and he has responsibility of his father; mother and wife with whom he has 8-month-old daughter.

It has been submitted that the respondent out of that limited source of monthly income has already given a huge amount of Rs. 10 lacs to the appellant as alimony.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading available on record as also the finding recorded by learned family court.

This Court before proceeding further needs to refer herein the finding recorded by learned family court with respect to cruelty and desertion as also the finding with respect to permanent alimony.

So far as the finding recorded with respect to cruelty is concerned, it has been taken note that as per the pleading made by the petitioner-wife, the appellant herein, after the marriage the petitioner started leading her conjugal life with the respondent but after about one month the respondent-husband and his parents started demanding Rs. 5 lac by way of dowry and they also started treating the petitioner in a cruel manner subsequently the respondent took the petitioner to Ranchi at the place of his work where she was accommodated in a rented house and after sometime the respondent started pressuring the petitioner to ask her father to give Rs. 10 lac for purchase of flat at Ranchi and when she refused, she was assaulted by the respondent and ultimately on 11.08.2019 when the brother of the petitioner went to take her back, on seeing him the respondent became furious and caused injuries on the right hand of the petitioner and threw them out of the house and then she came back to Jamtara and lodged a case against the respondent and others in Mahila P.S Jamtara on 13.08.2019 being Mahila P.S Case No. 45 of 2019. The above pleading of the petitioner has also been substantiated by the oral testimony of the witnesses of the petitioner.

It has further been submitted that all the witnesses have deposed in their respective oral evidence that after the marriage the petitioner went to her sasural and stayed well for one month and thereafter the respondent and his family members started demanding Rs. 5 lac and also started torturing her for the same. Later on the respondent took her at Ranchi in his rented house where he started pressuring her for Rs. 10 lac to purchase flat in Ranchi and when she refused he committed marpeet with her and on information when the brother of the petitioner went to take her back on 11.08.2019, the respondent became furious and drove the petitioner out of his house by threatening her and thereafter the petitioner came to Jamtara and lodged a case against the petitioner. In their respective cross examination, the respondent has not been able to extract any material contradictions on the point of demand of money and torture for the same. Though the respondent has denied the same in his W.S and in his oral evidence as DW1 also he has denied all the allegations of demand of money from the petitioner. Though he has also admitted the registration of a case against him and other family members u/s 498A of IPC by the petitioner.

In the instant case the demand of Rs.5 lac as well as Rs. 10 lac by the respondent from the petitioner is established and as such the learned family court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-wife has succeeded to establish the ground of cruelty for grant of decree of divorce.

So far as the ground of desertion for grant of decree of divorce is concerned, the learned court has found that the suit for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, has been instituted by the petitioner on 12.04.2021 whereas the pleading and evidence adduced on her behalf shows that the respondent has deserted the petitioner since 11.08.2019 and the statutory period required for filing of the suit must be not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of petition which is wanting in this suit and as such the learned trial court has come to the conclusion that decree of divorce on the ground of desertion cannot be granted.

Accordingly, the learned family court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-wife has succeeded to prove her case against the respondent for grant of decree of divorce.

So far as the issue of permanent alimony, the learned family court has directed the respondent to give total Rs. 10 lacs only as permanent alimony to the petitioner out of which he has already given Rs. 8 lacs at the time of grant of his anticipatory bail by the order of the Jharkhand High Court and now he shall give remaining Rs. 2 lacs only.

Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, so far as the issue of permanent alimony, is concerned that while awarding the amount of permanent alimony, the learned family court did not consider the fact about the transactions done at the time of marriage and even did not afford opportunity to adduce documentary evidence for the statement made against the ornaments and articles and other expensed done in the marriage.

Further submission has been made that it is settled principle of law that while awarding permanent alimony the income and assets of the parties as also the earning capacity and standard of living and age of the spouse is to be taken into consideration but from bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it would be evident that without going into or discussing these factors, the quantum of alimony has been fixed which requires enhancement.

Further referring to the pay-slip of the respondent husband, who is working as office assistant at Jharkhand Bijali Vitaran Nigam Ltd, office Kokar Bariatu, Ranchi, submission has been made that he is earning more than Rs.54,000/- in the year 2024 and as of now his salary must have been revised. Further submission has been made that even the provident fund and other savings are there for the appellant‟s present necessity and also for his future necessity besides salary. But the life of the appellant is at a very pitiable condition.

Therefore, considering the life expectancy and the fact that the respondent-wife has to survive on the interest earned from that amount, the amount of permanent alimony may be enhanced, so that she can live in reasonable comfort considering the status and mode of life she would have used to live when she lived with respondent-husband.

While, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-husband has submitted that considering the income and other conditions as of now the respondent has re-married from whom he has one daughter, the amount of permanent alimony as awarded by the learned family court is sufficient, which requires no interference by this Court.

This Court has perused the materials available on record, so far as the issue of permanent alimony is concerned and found that the respondent has exhibited the certified copy of order dated 03.03.2020 passed in ABA No. 1342 of 2020 by the Jharkhand High Court by which the respondent-Dinesh Kumar Gupta was granted anticipatory bail on depositing a demand draft of Rs. 8 lac as ad interim victim compensation in favour of wife-Kanak Kumari Gupta and it was further ordered that the said amount shall be adjusted with respect to the maintenance in any present or future proceeding between the parties or final settlement between them if and when the same takes place.

The respondent-husband has produced the photocopy of demand draft of Rs. 8 lac which was marked X for identification, which has been prepared in the name of Kanak Kumari and it has been admitted by the petitioner that she received the said amount.

So far the ground taken by the petitioner that her father had given Rs. 12 lac cash, ten bharis of golden ornaments, a lot of household articles worth Rs. 2 lac to the respondent and he also bore the entire expenses of the marriage but failed to produce any chit of documentary evidence in support thereof. Accordingly, while granting decree of divorce, the learned family Court has directed the respondent to give total Rs. 10 lacs only as permanent alimony to the petitioner out of which he has already given Rs. 8 lacs at the time of grant of his anticipatory bail by the order of the Jharkhand High Court and now he shall give remaining Rs. 2 lacs only.

This Court while hearing the matter vide order dated 17^th October, 2025 directed the parties to file affidavit on the issue of quantum of alimony in terms of the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of „Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. [(2021) 2 SCC 324] giving therein all the details of the properties, both movable and immovable, including the salary slip since the respondent-husband is working in the Jharkhand Bijali Vitran Nigam Limited. For ready reference, order dated 17^th October, 2025 is quoted as under:

In terms thereof, affidavit was filed by the parties.

This Court in the aforesaid backdrop facts and submission requires to consider as to: “what would be the quantum of permanent alimony to meet the needs of the wife on the basis of pleadings available on record and as per the standard of life she would have enjoyed had she been living with the appellant?”

This Court, before considering the aforesaid issue, needs to refer herein the provision of law as contained under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein it has been provided that 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 be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent‟s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent. For ready reference, Section 25 of the Act, 1955 is quoted as under:

It is evident from the aforesaid provision that concept of permanent alimony as provided under Section 25 have been enacted with the object of removing the hardship of the wife or the husband with no independent income sufficient for living or meeting litigant expenses; such a leave can be granted as well who may also be deprived of the same on proof of having sexual intercourse outside the wedlock. It is also settled position of law that the Court may grant permanent alimony to the party while disposing of the main application even if application has been moved; meaning thereby the intent of the Act is to remove the handicap/hardship of a wife or husband by passing an appropriate order at the appropriate stage either under Section 24 or 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The basic behind this is to sustain the live of husband or wife, if having no sufficient source of income.

The Hon‟ble Apex Court has also considered the intent of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act in catena of Judgments wherein it has been observed that Section 25 of Act 1955 is an enabling provision. It empowers the court in a matrimonial case to consider facts and circumstances of the spouse applying and deciding whether or not to grant permanent alimony. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 provides that a matrimonial Court exercising the jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act may at the time of passing a decree or at any time subsequent thereto on an Application made to it, order to pay maintenance.

Thus, a power is conferred on the Matrimonial Court to grant permanent alimony or maintenance on the basis of a decree of divorce passed under the Hindu Marriage Act even subsequent to the date of passing of the decree on the basis of an application made in that behalf. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 confers a power on the Court to vary, modify or rescind the order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 in case of change in circumstances. The power under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 is an independent power. The said power can be exercised if the Court is satisfied that the wife in whose favour an order under Subsection (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made has not remained chaste. In such event, at the instance of the other party, the Court may vary, modify or rescind the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200.For ready reference, paragraph 14 of the judgment is quoted as under:

We may note here that a substitution has been brought to Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act with effect from 27^th May 1997. Earlier, it was provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 that if the Court was satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made has not remained chaste, it shall rescind the order. The words “it shall rescind the order” appearing in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 were replaced by the said amendment by the words “it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order …..”. The legislature in its wisdom by the said substitution has provided that after the facts stated in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act are established, the Court may vary, modify or rescind any such order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, after 1976, there is a discretion conferred on the Court by Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of declining to rescind, vary or modify the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 thereof, even if on an Application made by the husband/wife, it is established that the husband/wife has not remained chaste after the decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 25.

The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 while appreciating the core of Section 25 of the Act 1955 has observed thatfor permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent's own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:

It needs to refer herein that no arithmetic formula can be adopted for grant of permanent alimony to wife. However, status of parties, their respective social needs, financial capacity of husband and other obligations must be taken into account. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr [(2021) 2 SCC 324] the Hon‟ble Apex Court has extensively dealt with the issue of granting interim/permanent alimony and has categorically held 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. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The Hon‟ble Apex Court further held that the Court while considering the issue of maintenance, should consider the factors like the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:

Recently, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan [2025 SCC OnLine SC1259] has enhanced the amount of alimony subject to increase of alimony on every two years.

This Court has considered the factual aspect of the said case and on perusal of the fact, referred therein, it is evident that in the said case, the appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on 18.06.1997. A son was born to them on 05.08.1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the appellant-wife. Subsequently, the appellant-wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 in the same suit under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son. The Trial Court, by order dated 14.01.2010, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The appellant-wife then instituted Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/-per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Trial Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that the respondent-husband had failed to prove cruelty. Aggrieved, the respondent filed FAT No. 122 of 2015 before the High Court of Calcutta. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-wife filed CAN No. 4505 of 2025 seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- for herself and Rs. 20,000/- for the son, along with Rs. 50,000/-towards litigation expenses. The High Court, by order dated 14.05.2015, directed the respondent-husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Subsequently, by order dated 14.07.2016, the High Court noted that the respondent-husband was drawing a net monthly salary of Rs. 69,000/- and enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs. 20,000/- per month. Finally, the High Court, by the impugned order dated 25.06.2019, allowed the respondent's appeal, granted a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and directed the respondent-husband to redeem the mortgage on the flat where the appellant-wife was residing and transfer the title deed to her name by 31.08.2019; allow the appellant-wife and their son to continue residing in the said flat; and continue to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, subject to a 5% increase every three years. Additionally, the High Court directed payment of educational expenses for the son's university education and Rs. 5,000/- per month for private tuition.

Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the appellant-wife is approached the Hon‟ble Apex Court.

The Hon‟ble Apex Court, by interim order dated 07.11.2023, noting the absence of representation on behalf of the respondent-husband despite proof of service, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs. 75,000/- with effect from 01.11.2023. The respondent-husband subsequently entered appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim order.

The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month, which the High Court made final, was originally awarded as interim maintenance. She submits that the respondent-husband has a monthly income of approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- and the quantum of alimony awarded is not commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the parties during the marriage.

In response, the respondent-husband submits that his current net monthly income is Rs. 1,64,039/-, earned from his employment at the Institute of Hotel Management, Taratala, Kolkata. He has placed on record salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for the year 2023-2024. It is further stated that he was earlier employed with the Taj Hotel, drawing a gross annual salary of Rs. 21,92,525/-. He also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs. 1,72,088/-, and that he has remarried, has a dependent family, and aged parents. The respondent-husband contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially dependent.

The Hon‟ble Apex Court taking note of the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court has come to the conclusion that it requires revision. The said revision is on the basis of the respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings which establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed that the appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. It has also been observed, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.

Therefore, Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. The said amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has expressed its view that the Court is not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. It has been clarified that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court was modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the said order is being quoted as under:

This Court has perused the affidavit filed by the respondent-husband in terms of law laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. (Supra) and found therefrom that he is working as Office Assistant at Jharkhand Bijali Vitaran Nigam Ltd, Ranchi, and he was earning more than Rs.54,000/- in the year September, 2024. It is not appreciable at all that he did not annex with the affidavit the current pay-slip rather he attached therewith the pay-slip of two years back, as such this Court is not known how much salary at present respondent is getting. But there must be increase in his salary in the last two years by virtue of dearness allowance and annual increment and on other grounds, such as on the count of promotion/ACP/MACP etc. Such conduct of the respondent-husband is not appreciable at all.

There is no denial of the fact that the salary of the respondent-husband would must increase after every six months on increase of Dearness Allowance and every year on account of annual increment and further there will be hike in salary due to Pay-Commission(s) and promotion(s)/ACP/MACP and even after retirement the appellant-husband would get huge amount of retiral benefit but the appellant-wife has to survive on the interest earned on the permanent alimony granted in favour of the respondent.

This Court, taking the life expectancy of a person to be 70 years, herein the appellant-wife, who is presently only aged about 28 years and as per life expectancy she has to survive for 42 years; and the salary of the respondent-husband, as in September, 2024 is 54,000/- apprx. and applying the settled proposition of law, the 1/3^rd of the salary per months as maintenance it will comes to Rs. 18,000/- per month and the same if is multiplied, taking into consideration the life expectancy of the wife, it comes to huge amount of Rs.90 lakhs.

However, this Court, taking into consideration the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute vis-à-vis the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her husband, is of the view that a minimum amount of Rs. 40 lakhs would be just and proper.

This Court is conscious that the appellant-husband is also to survive and he has other liability and responsibility but it is also his utmost duty to maintain the standard of life of the respondent-wife, she would have enjoyed during subsistence of the marriage as per income and status of her husband, the respondent herein.

For the reasons aforesaid, this Court thought it proper that a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- [forty lakhs] in total as one-time permanent alimony would be just, fair and reasonable, for sustenance of the respondent-wife, who has no other source of income other than the amount alimony so received by the appellant-husband for her livelihood and sustenance.

Accordingly, the impugned order/judgment dated 17.05.2023 is modified to the extent that the respondent-husband is liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 40 lakhs instead of Rs. 10 lakhs, as awarded by learned family court.

The rest amount which has not been paid by respondent-husband shall be paid by him in four equal installments within a period of one year from the date of passing of the order and first installment shall be paid within a period of two month from today.

Accordingly, the order/judgment dated 17.05.2023 and decree signed on 23.05.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara in Original (Matrimonial) Suit No. 33 of 2021, is modified to the extent, as indicated hereinabove.

With the aforesaid directions and observations, as made hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed and decreed in the above terms.

Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.