The Jharkhand High Court, in a significant judgment on October 14, 2025, granted a decree of divorce to a State Bank of India manager, overturning a Family Court order that had dismissed his plea. A division bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar directed the husband, who had married another woman during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, to pay a total of ₹60,000 per month as permanent alimony to his first wife and their son.
The court allowed the appeal filed by the husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, against the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, dated February 22, 2023, which had rejected his divorce suit filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Background of the Case
The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were married on February 14, 2011, and have a son born on February 19, 2012. In his original suit, the husband alleged that his wife was a “hot tempered and quarrelsome lady” who subjected him and his family to cruelty and had withdrawn from his society in March 2014 without reason.
The couple had been involved in multiple legal proceedings. The husband had previously obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on September 7, 2017, which the wife did not comply with. The wife had filed a maintenance case in which her husband was directed to pay ₹7,000 per month. She also filed criminal cases under Section 498A of the IPC against him and his family members.
The Family Court in Bokaro had dismissed the husband’s divorce petition. Aggrieved by this decision, he approached the Jharkhand High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
During the appeal, the respondent-wife submitted that the appellant-husband had solemnized a second marriage in 2019. Citing this, she stated, “there is no chance of restitution of conjugal right now. Therefore, the respondent-wife is ready for dissolution of marriage but subject to payment of permanent alimony.”
The appellant-husband, through his counsel, argued that the wife was not entitled to maintenance as she was employed and earning. He submitted that his take-home salary was only ₹65,536 and that he had substantial loans to repay. However, he expressed his willingness to shoulder the educational responsibilities of his son.
The respondent-wife countered that her contractual employment had ended in April 2025, leaving her without a source of income and dependent on her elderly father. She contended that the husband, a Deputy Manager at SBI, had a gross monthly salary of approximately ₹1,50,000 but was deliberately showing a lower income by citing deductions for loans that were creating future assets. She submitted evidence of the significant educational expenses she had been bearing for their son.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court bench noted that since both parties had consented to the dissolution of the marriage, the central issue was determining the appropriate quantum of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The court observed that the appellant-husband had not fully disclosed his movable and immovable assets despite repeated directions, leading the court to draw an adverse inference against him. The bench examined his September 2025 salary slip, which showed a gross monthly income of ₹1,49,753.
The court extensively relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. and, more recently, Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan. The bench found the facts of the present case to be on an “even on better footing” than Rakhi Sadhukhan, where the Supreme Court had awarded ₹50,000 monthly alimony to a wife whose husband earned ₹1,64,039 per month. The High Court reasoned that in the present case, the wife is unemployed and has a minor son of 13 to support, whereas, in the Rakhi Sadhukhan case, the son was a major.
Based on this analysis, the court concluded that a substantial monthly alimony was justified. The judgment stated, “this Court is of the considered view permanent alimony is required to be ordered to be paid on month-to-month basis.”
The court ordered as follows:
- The judgment of the Family Court, Bokaro, dated February 22, 2023, was quashed and set aside.
- A sum of ₹35,000 per month was awarded to the respondent-wife for her sustenance.
- A further sum of ₹25,000 per month was awarded for the livelihood, sustenance, and study of their son, payable until he continues his education.
- The total alimony of ₹60,000 is to be paid by the 10th of each month and is subject to a 5% enhancement every two years to account for inflation.
- In case of default, the court granted liberty to the wife “to communicate by way of an application… to the employer of the appellant husband along with copy of this order for disbursement of the said amount directly in her bank account.”
- The visiting rights for the father, as previously determined by the Family Court (every second Saturday and last Sunday of the month), were upheld.
- The court 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.”
With these directions, the appeal was allowed, and the marriage was formally dissolved.
