Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 25 — Permanent Alimony and Maintenance — Quantum — Factors for Determination — One-time Settlement — Financial Status and Earning Capacity of Husband — Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and awarded Rs. 40,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony to the wife — Both husband and wife appealed against the quantum of alimony — Husband was employed as a Senior Software Engineer drawing a net monthly salary of Rs. 2,24,208/-, whereas the wife was 32 years of age, unemployed, and had no independent source of income — Held, Section 25 of the Act is an enabling provision intended to prevent a dependent spouse from being reduced to destitution or vagrancy — In determining permanent alimony, the Court must evaluate the actual income/earning capacity of the husband, his liabilities, the status of the parties, spiraling inflation, and the life expectancy of the wife (approx. 70 years) so that she can live in reasonable comfort commensurate with the lifestyle enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage — While around 25% of the husband's net salary serves as a reasonable benchmark, deductions are permissible only for statutory liabilities (like income tax) and not for voluntary expenses like EMIs — One-time permanent alimony enhanced from Rs. 40,00,000/- to Rs. 70,00,000/-, payable by the husband in four equal installments within 12 months. (Paras 24, 29, 30, 31, 33, 56, 68, 70, 71, 73)

advocatemmmohan

(JHARKHAND HIGH COURT AT RANCHI)

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD AND SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.

F.A.(DB) No. 247 of 2024 with F.A. No. 05 of 2025, D/- 12-5-2026.

HEADNOTES

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 25 — Permanent Alimony and Maintenance — Quantum — Factors for Determination — One-time Settlement — Financial Status and Earning Capacity of Husband — Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and awarded Rs. 40,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony to the wife — Both husband and wife appealed against the quantum of alimony — Husband was employed as a Senior Software Engineer drawing a net monthly salary of Rs. 2,24,208/-, whereas the wife was 32 years of age, unemployed, and had no independent source of income — Held, Section 25 of the Act is an enabling provision intended to prevent a dependent spouse from being reduced to destitution or vagrancy — In determining permanent alimony, the Court must evaluate the actual income/earning capacity of the husband, his liabilities, the status of the parties, spiraling inflation, and the life expectancy of the wife (approx. 70 years) so that she can live in reasonable comfort commensurate with the lifestyle enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage — While around 25% of the husband's net salary serves as a reasonable benchmark, deductions are permissible only for statutory liabilities (like income tax) and not for voluntary expenses like EMIs — One-time permanent alimony enhanced from Rs. 40,00,000/- to Rs. 70,00,000/-, payable by the husband in four equal installments within 12 months.

(Paras 24, 29, 30, 31, 33, 56, 68, 70, 71, 73)

(B) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 25 — Permanent Alimony — Wife's Parental Means — Relevance — Husband contended that the wife was the sole child of her parents and could inherit their property/means — Held, the financial position of the parents of the wife is completely immaterial when deciding maintenance or permanent alimony — The obligation to maintain the wife flows directly from the marital relationship and cannot be shifted onto her parents, regardless of their financial status.

(Paras 55, 61, 62)

(C) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 25 — Permanent Alimony — Assessment of Husband's Income — Voluntary Deductions vs. Statutory Deductions — Husband disclosed his gross/net earnings along with monthly expenses and rental/loan obligations — Held, while assessing a husband's "free income" for calculating maintenance or permanent alimony, Courts shall consider only statutory liabilities such as income tax and provident fund, while disregarding voluntary expenses such as EMIs on loans, insurance premiums, or optional investments.

(Paras 54, 70)

Cases Referred:

1. Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (Relied on) — Paras 12, 31, 32, 52, 61

2. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 (Relied on) — Paras 27, 70

3. Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 (Relied on) — Paras 29, 30

4. U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 (Relied on) — Para 30

5. Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724 (Relied on) — Paras 32, 33

6. Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678 (Relied on) — Para 34

7. Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259 (Relied on) — Paras 35, 36, 43

8. Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 (Relied on) — Para 60

9. Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 (Relied on) — Para 61