The Jharkhand High Court, while hearing a first appeal against a family court decree, clarified that permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act must be assessed on the parties' actual earning capacity and standard of living, and that voluntary loan repayments cannot be used to diminish the husband’s maintenance obligation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Rakesh Kumar Tarun, a contractual medical officer posted at Sadar Hospital, Garhwa, filed a suit (Original Suit No. 78 of 2020) seeking dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against his wife, Anita Kumari. The suit was decided by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Garhwa, on 19 February 2025 with a decree dated 7 March 2025 dismissing the petition for divorce on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove cruelty.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is a contractual doctor earning a gross monthly salary of Rs 1,61,260, of which Rs 1,28,252 is deducted for loan repayments.
- He has taken a personal loan of Rs 38,00,000 from Axis Bank, disbursed on 3 June 2025, resulting in a monthly EMI of Rs 81,771.
- The petitioner also claims ownership of a tract of family land (2005) and a separate land parcel valued at Rs 22,00,000 intended for a charitable hospital.
- The respondent is a housewife with no independent income, caring for two minor children (son aged 14, daughter aged 12).
- On 5 May 2026 the petitioner offered a one-time settlement of Rs 40,00,000 along with future educational and marriage expenses for the children; the respondent rejected the offer as insufficient.
- The parties were directed to file affidavits on 5 May 2026 in accordance with Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324.
- The respondent sought travel expenses of Rs 25,000 as per the order dated 26 August 2025.
Procedural History
- 19 Feb 2025: Family Court judgment dismissing divorce petition.
- 7 Mar 2025: Decree signed by Family Court.
- 7 Nov 2025: High Court issued notice to respondent.
- 26 Aug 2025: Order directing payment of Rs 25,000 travel expenses to respondent.
- 28 Jan 2026: Matter referred to JHALSA, Ranchi for mediation (Mediation for the Nation Drive 2.0).
- 10 Mar 2026: Extension of mediation time granted due to respondent’s irregular attendance.
- 5 May 2026: Both parties filed affidavits as directed.
- 6 Jul 2026: Arguments on permanent alimony concluded; order reserved.
- 6 Aug 2026: Judgment pronounced, appeal allowed, lower court order quashed.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought dissolution of marriage and, alternatively, a settlement of permanent alimony. The respondent sought a decree of divorce and a quantum of permanent alimony sufficient to maintain her and the children in a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.
The Legal Issue
What is the appropriate quantum of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when the husband’s net income is reduced by voluntary loan repayments, and can such deductions be considered in fixing the maintenance amount?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that his net disposable income is substantially reduced by a monthly loan repayment of Rs 81,771, and therefore a settlement of Rs 40,00,000 as a one-time payment, together with future educational expenses, is reasonable. He relied on the fact that the loan was taken for “future wealth construction” and argued that the deduction reflects his actual earning capacity.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that the loan repayment is a voluntary financial commitment and should not be allowed to diminish the husband’s statutory duty to maintain her. She cited Rajnesh v. Neha and Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi (2026) INSC 370, emphasizing that the court must assess the husband’s gross earning capacity, not the reduced net income after loan deductions, and that the proposed amount is insufficient for her and the children’s reasonable needs.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reiterating the purpose of Section 25 (1) - to prevent destitution of a dependent spouse and to maintain a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. It noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the assessment of permanent alimony must consider the respondent’s own income, the applicant’s income and property, the conduct of the parties, and the standard of living.
"The liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation and cannot be subordinated to voluntary financial commitments such as loan repayments that are not essential for the husband’s sustenance."
The Court distinguished between necessary expenditures and voluntary capital investments, observing that repayments of a loan taken for asset creation constitute a capital investment and therefore cannot be used to lower the maintenance liability. It quoted Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi (2026) INSC 370, which held that deductions arising from loan repayments for future wealth creation are not comparable to essential expenditures.
The Court then examined the appellant’s gross monthly salary of Rs 1,61,260 and the respondent’s lack of independent income. It rejected the appellant’s argument that the loan repayment reduced his “net disposable income” for the purpose of alimony calculation. Instead, the Court applied the comprehensive framework laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha and Vinny Parmvir Parmar (2011), considering:
- The husband’s gross earning capacity.
- The financial needs of the wife and two minor children.
- The standard of living enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage.
- The fact that the loan was taken during the pendency of the suit and is not essential for the husband’s personal maintenance.
Having evaluated the evidence, the Court concluded that a one-time settlement of Rs 40,00,000 for the wife alone was inadequate. It ordered a total permanent alimony of Rs 90,00,000, apportioned as Rs 40,00,000 to the wife and Rs 25,00,000 each for the son and daughter, to be paid in four equal installments over twelve months, with the first installment due within one month of the order.
The Verdict
The appeal is allowed. The Family Court’s order dated 19 February 2025 and decree dated 7 March 2025 are quashed. The appellant-husband is directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs 40,00,000 to the respondent-wife, Rs 25,00,000 each to the son and daughter (total Rs 90,00,000), payable in four equal installments within twelve months, the first installment within one month. He must also deposit Rs 25,00,000 each in a nationalised bank for the son’s and daughter’s education/marriage. The marriage is dissolved subject to the final payment of alimony.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Loan Deductions Do Not Reduce Alimony
- Courts will treat loan repayments taken for asset creation as voluntary commitments, not as essential expenses.
- Parties cannot rely on reduced net income after loan deductions to argue for lower maintenance.
Comprehensive Income Assessment Required
- The gross earning capacity of the husband is the primary benchmark.
- All sources of income, including government salary, private practice earnings, and potential earnings, must be considered.
- Affidavits must disclose full financial position; partial disclosures will be disregarded.
Mediation Offers Are Not Controlling
- Settlement offers made during mediation are persuasive but not determinative.
- The court retains discretion to adjust the quantum based on statutory factors and case law.
Practical Takeaways
- Prepare detailed affidavits covering gross salary, assets, liabilities, and potential earnings.
- Do not claim loan repayments as a basis to reduce alimony; be prepared to justify any deductions as essential.
- Anticipate that the court will apply the Supreme Court’s multi-factor test from Rajnesh v. Neha and related precedents.
