The Jharkhand High Court, hearing an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, re-examined the quantum of permanent alimony payable under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and for the first time awarded both a revised monthly sum and a one-time lump-sum settlement.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Anjali Kumari @ Anjali Devi, seeks a higher permanent alimony and a lump-sum award against her former husband, Sunil Kumar Paswan, and the Indian Railways (IG-cum-PCSC/RPF/GPF-43) as impleaded respondent.
Key Facts
- 14.07.2013: Marriage solemnised before the Marriage Registrar, Sasaram.
- 22.01.2014: Second Hindu rites performed at Tilouthu, Rohtas.
- 08.04.2015: Birth of a male child.
- 27.01.2014: Wife left matrimonial home, returned after hospitalization.
- 27.04.2014: Wife again left for her father's house.
- 04.08.2014: Wife fled; husband recovered her from a telephone booth 2 km away.
- 05.08.2014: Wife’s uncle attempted to misguide police.
- 20.09.2014: Husband’s family attempted to retrieve wife; she eventually returned.
- 27/28.02.2015: Wife injured herself; taken to Dr. Geetanjali’s dispensary.
- 01.03.2015: Wife disappeared with ornaments and Rs.20,000.
- 29.01.2018: Additional Family Court, Ranchi, passed decree of divorce in favour of the husband (order dated 29.01.2018, decree signed 06.02.2018).
- 09.03.2016: Family Court directed maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month.
- 23.04.2025: Court directed appearance of parties for settlement of permanent alimony.
- 05.05.2025: Interlocutory application I.A. No. 5791 of 2025 filed to implead the Railway authority.
- 22.12.2025: Court allowed impleadment of IG-cum-PCSC/RPF/GPF-43.
- 07.11.2023: Apex Court interim order enhanced maintenance to Rs.75,000 per month.
- 06.08.2026: Jharkhand HC delivered the present judgment.
Procedural History
- 29.01.2018: Additional Family Court, Ranchi, granted decree of divorce (Suit No. 86 of 2016).
- F.A. No.100 of 2023: Appeal filed before Jharkhand High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act.
- 20.03.2025: Co-ordinate Division Bench heard submissions on permanent alimony.
- 23.04.2025: Directions for physical appearance of parties.
- 05.05.2025: Interlocutory application for impleadment of Railway authority listed.
- 22.12.2025: Order allowing impleadment of IG-cum-PCSC/RPF/GPF-43 as respondent No. 2.
- 07.11.2023: Apex Court interim order raising maintenance to Rs.75,000 per month.
- 06.08.2026: Present judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
- Appellant: Argues that the husband’s gross monthly salary (Rs.1,06,539) and his financial capacity justify a higher permanent alimony of Rs.50,000 per month and a one-time lump-sum of Rs.30 lakhs to secure future livelihood.
- Respondent: Contends that his net salary (Rs.98,631) and family liabilities limit his ability to pay; cites his remarriage and the son’s age (26) as reasons to reduce the quantum.
Relief Sought
- Modification of the decree of divorce to award permanent alimony of Rs.50,000 per month, subject to a 5 % increase every two years.
- Award of a one-time permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000, payable in three equal instalments within twelve months.
- Payment of arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs.17,00,000.
- Creation of a fixed deposit of Rs.10,00,000 for the son’s education.
The Legal Issue
What is the appropriate quantum of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 when the parties’ financial circumstances have materially changed, and may the court award a lump-sum settlement in addition to a monthly amount?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The appellant relied on Section 25 (both sub-sections (1) and (2)) which empower the court to vary alimony on a change of circumstances.
- Cited Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) 14 SCC 200 and Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112, emphasizing that the court must consider the respondent’s income, the applicant’s needs, and the standard of living.
- Submitted detailed salary slips, bank statements, and affidavits showing the husband’s gross monthly salary of Rs.1,06,539, arguing that a monthly alimony of Rs.50,000 plus a Rs.30 lakh lump-sum is “just, fair and reasonable”.
For the Respondent
- The respondent highlighted his net salary of Rs.98,631, substantial family liabilities (monthly expenses of Rs.1,72,088) and his remarriage, invoking Section 25(3) (as amended) to argue that the wife’s claim should be moderated.
- Relied on Rajnesh v. Neha and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to contend that the court should not impose a burden beyond the husband’s paying capacity.
- Proposed a modest increase to Rs.20,000 per month (the amount previously ordered by the High Court) and opposed any lump-sum award.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by interpreting the statutory scheme of Section 25. It noted that the amendment of 1996 transformed the mandatory rescission language of sub-section (3) into a discretionary power to “vary, modify or rescind”.
"In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife."
The Court affirmed that permanent alimony is an enabling provision, not a fixed formula, and must be calibrated to:
- Income and assets of the respondent - the Court accepted the gross salary of Rs.1,06,539 and the net figure of Rs.98,631, rejecting the respondent’s claim of insufficiency.
- Needs of the applicant - the appellant, aged 31, with a ten-year-old son, has no independent income; the Court considered her monthly expenditure of Rs.25,000 and the son’s educational costs.
- Standard of living - the parties enjoyed a middle-class lifestyle during marriage; the Court held that the alimony should enable the appellant to maintain a comparable standard.
- Change in circumstances - the respondent’s remarriage and increased liabilities were weighed, but the Court found that the appellant’s continued dependence outweighed any reduction.
- Precedent - the Court relied on Kalyan Dey Chowdhury for the discretionary nature of sub-section (2) and on Vinny Parmvir Parmar for the relevance of the respondent’s earning capacity.
The Court further explained that a lump-sum award is permissible under Section 25(2) when it serves the purpose of securing the applicant’s future, especially where the applicant is unlikely to earn sufficient income. It emphasized that the lump-sum must be “just, fair and reasonable” and should not prejudice the respondent’s ability to meet his own obligations.
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the previously ordered Rs.20,000 per month was inadequate and that a monthly alimony of Rs.50,000, subject to a 5 % biennial increase, together with a one-time payment of Rs.30,00,000 (payable in three instalments over twelve months), would meet the statutory objectives.
The Verdict
The appeal is allowed. The decree of divorce dated 29.01.2018 and the decree signed on 06.02.2018 are modified as follows:
- Permanent alimony: Rs.50,000 per month, to be increased by 5 % every two years.
- One-time permanent alimony: Rs.30,00,000, payable in three equal instalments within twelve months from the date of this order.
- Arrears of maintenance: Rs.17,00,000 to be paid by the respondent at the earliest.
- Fixed deposit: Rs.10,00,000 to be created in a nationalised bank in the son’s name for educational purposes.
- The son’s right of inheritance remains unaffected.
- All other directions of the impugned order are set aside.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Permanent Alimony Can Be Revised on Changed Circumstances
- Courts will reassess alimony when the respondent’s income or the applicant’s needs have materially changed, even years after the decree.
- Actionable takeaway: File a fresh application under Section 25(2) with up-to-date financial disclosures.
Lump-Sum Awards Are Permissible
- A one-time settlement is within the court’s discretion if it secures the applicant’s future and is proportionate to the respondent’s capacity.
- Actionable takeaway: Prepare a detailed calculation showing why a lump-sum is necessary; include evidence of the applicant’s inability to earn.
Income Assessment Must Be Substantiated
- Salary slips, bank statements, and tax returns are essential; the court will disregard speculative figures.
- Actionable takeaway: Ensure the respondent’s actual earnings are fully documented; challenge any under-disclosure with forensic accounting if needed.
