The Jharkhand High Court has directed a man to pay ₹20 lakh as permanent alimony to his former wife, holding that a husband cannot escape his responsibility to maintain a wife without an independent income merely because she resides with her parents or receives financial assistance from them.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad, in its October 9 ruling, determined the amount after examining the husband’s earnings, financial commitments and the woman’s future requirements. The decision came in an appeal filed by the 47-year-old woman against a 2016 family court decree dissolving their marriage.
The High Court emphasised that the husband’s primary obligation to provide maintenance remains unaffected by the financial position of the wife’s parents.
Court Examines Financial Position of Both Parties
While assessing permanent alimony, the Bench considered that the husband earned a gross monthly salary of approximately ₹47,498 and received ₹34,372 after deductions.
The court also examined the woman’s circumstances, particularly her age, absence of independent earnings and financial needs in the years ahead. At the same time, it took into account the husband’s existing obligations.
After considering these factors, the Bench concluded that ₹20 lakh would constitute fair and reasonable permanent alimony.
The court explained that the amount appropriately balanced the husband’s financial capacity against the wife’s entitlement to financial security, particularly because she had no independent income and would depend on the alimony for her livelihood.
Dispute Originated From Marriage in 2003
The parties married in February 2003, but their relationship subsequently deteriorated amid allegations concerning the wife’s conduct and disputes involving their families.
According to the husband’s version, the marriage took place without dowry. He alleged that his wife initially stayed at the matrimonial home for only 24 hours before accompanying him to his workplace.
He further claimed that she later insisted on returning to her parental home. His parents subsequently brought her back to the family residence in Jamshedpur after approximately one and a half months.
A criminal complaint alleging cruelty was later filed by the woman’s father.
The husband also alleged that his wife experienced depression because of strained relations with her parents, who, according to him, refused to communicate with her. He claimed that she attempted suicide twice and that he intervened on both occasions.
Among his other allegations was that the woman avoided household kitchen work, leaving his 79-year-old mother to manage those responsibilities.
In 2008, the husband approached the family court seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The court granted the divorce in April 2016, prompting the woman to challenge the decree before the Jharkhand High Court.
Husband’s Remarriage Narrows Dispute to Permanent Alimony
During the appeal proceedings, the High Court was informed that the husband had remarried on July 10, 2018.
In an affidavit, he disclosed that he was residing with his second wife and mother at his ancestral residence.
Advocate Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, appearing for the woman, submitted that the parties had agreed to resolve the dispute through payment of permanent alimony in view of the husband’s subsequent marriage.
Advocate Dilip Kumar Karmakar, representing the husband, maintained that reconciliation or mediation was no longer possible because of the second marriage. He submitted that the outstanding issue concerned the amount of permanent alimony.
The Bench also interacted directly with both parties. The woman expressed her willingness to accept the divorce decree subject to receiving permanent alimony, while the husband maintained that his financial circumstances did not permit him to make the payment.
Maintenance Disputes Must Be Assessed Against Social Reality
Addressing the approach courts should adopt in matrimonial financial disputes, the High Court observed that proceedings concerning alimony involve the personal circumstances of both spouses.
The Bench noted that a husband and wife may present differing accounts of their marriage based on their respective experiences, grievances and understanding of events.
It stressed that courts must assess those competing accounts practically, rather than adopting a purely mechanical approach, and must reach conclusions supported by evidence and the social circumstances of the parties.
The court further made clear that a wife’s residence with her parents does not transfer the husband’s primary maintenance responsibility to her family when she has no earnings of her own.
₹20 Lakh Awarded as Permanent Alimony
Having examined the financial position of the parties and their respective circumstances, the High Court fixed permanent alimony at ₹20 lakh.
The Bench considered the amount appropriate in light of the husband’s monthly income and obligations, alongside the woman’s lack of independent financial resources and her need for long-term support.
The determination resolved the issue of permanent alimony arising during the woman’s appeal against the divorce decree.
