Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.06.2024 and decree signed on 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Original Suit No. 166 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the petitioner-respondent [husband] for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against petitioner-appellant [wife], has been allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the divorce petition by the respondent-petitioner, as taken note in the impugned order, needs to be referred herein, which reads as under:

                  The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 04.02.2019 at Shiv Mandir Jhumra, Hazaribag according to Hindu rites and customs in the presence of family members, well-wishers and respectable persons of both the parties. After the marriage, the respondent- appellant came to her matrimonial house, but their marriage has not been consummated because the respondent-appellant has not permitted the respondent-petitioner to establish physical relationship with her. The marriage of respondent-petitioner with the respondent-appellant was solemnized under pressure, threat and coercion. It has further been averred that the mother of respondent-appellant, namely, Anju Devi had lodged a false case against the petitioner-respondent and one Sabur Mahto vide Special POCSO Case no. 10/2020, T.R. no. 55/2020 arising out of Barkagaon P.S. Case no. 168/18 for sexual exploitation of one minor girl i.e. the respondent-appellant u/s 376 (2), 366 of the I.P.C. read with section 6 of POCSO Act which was tried by the Ld. Sessions Judge-1 Hazaribag and after trial vide judgment dated 27.02.2020 both respondent- petitioner and Sabur Mahto were acquitted as the prosecution has failed to prove its case. But due to pressure of family members of respondent- petitioner and other persons of the society, respondent-petitioner married with the appellant-respondent and the married life of respondent-petitioner with the appellant-respondent is a long story of grief and sorrow.

                  It has been stated in the impugned judgment that on the very first night, the appellant-respondent declared that she had love affair with one Muslim boy and she has already married with him in the presence of her parents and relatives, so she has no lust for the respondent-petitioner and further she will not allow the respondent-petitioner to establish physical relationship with the respondent-petitioner, but even after all these, the respondent-petitioner treated the appellant-respondent with affection. It has been further submitted that while living in her sasural, appellant-respondent always engaged in talking with someone else which was objected by the respondent-petitioner but she was not ready to listen to anything. The respondent-petitioner complained to his father-in-law and requested to make the appellant-respondent understand but instead of making his daughter-respondent understand, he assaulted the respondent- petitioner at Mandir Chowk, Harli, P.S. Barkagaon by saying that his daughter/respondent does not talk with anyone. Thereafter, the appellant- respondent pressurized the respondent-petitioner to separate from his family members after partition, only then she will allow him to establish physical relationship, then ultimately, partition was done and both the parties started living separately in the same house without any connection with his parents or other relation, but inspite of that she has not allowed the respondent-petitioner to establish physical relationship, thereafter, the appellant-respondent came back to her maike and after one week the respondent-petitioner again took her back to his house and this time, she pressurized the respondent-petitioner to tell his father to execute registered sale deed in her name of his share but it was not fulfilled by him. In the meantime, the respondent-petitioner always inclined to establish physical relationship with her but she never allowed to do so. In the year 2020, the appellant-respondent, in the sleeping situation of the respondent-petitioner sprinkled kerosene oil and tried to kill by burning but due to awaking and raising hulla, she could not get success. In the meantime, the police patrolling party came there and took both the parties to P.S. where the police cautioned the appellant-respondent to live peacefully and not to do so. The appellant-respondent used to go somewhere in the night and sometimes in the day, on enquiry she used to say that she went to her maike which was enquired by him from her naihar, when the respondent- petitioner enquired from her Naihar, they said that they do not know and this type of activity was repeatedly committed by the appellant- respondent. Not only this, the appellant-respondent also filed a complaint Case No. 1637/2020 against the respondent-petitioner, his family members and other relations u/s 323, 341, 307, 313, 498A of the I.P.C., section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on totally false, vague and incorrect allegations, which was later on registered as Barkagaon P.S. case no. 301/2021 on 13.12.21 only with a motive to harass, demoralize, blackmail and pressurize them, in which the father of the respondent-petitioner was arrested and later on released on bail. The case is still pending in the court of Ld. SDJM, Hazaribag. It has further been averred that for the same offence, the appellant-respondent has again lodged an FIR before Barkagaon P.S. which was registered as Barkagaon case no. 305/dated 14.12.21 against only parents and brother of respondent-petitioner and one Lalo Mahto u/s 328, 307, 498A/ 34 of the I.P.C and section 3/4 of D. P. Act which is still pending in the court of Ld. SDJ M. Hazaribag. Seeing the attitude of the appellant-respondent, the respondent-petitioner on the ground of adultery, illicit relationship with other person other than husband and on cruelty and desertion filed an Original Suit no. 77 of 2020 and during its the pendency of the said O.S. case 77/20, the paramour of respondent namely Aftab Ansari of same village was found by the father of the respondent-petitioner in her room, and indulged in illicit relationship, for which, the father of respondent-petitioner lodged an FIR at Barkagaon PS upon which Barkagaon PS case no. 45/2021 dated 10.02.2021 has been registered u/s 376, 448 of the I.P.C against Aftab Ansari which was committed to the court of Sessions, vide ST No. 318/2021 pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge 1", Hazaribag. Charge sheet no. 83/21 dated 07.04.21 has also been submitted in that case. The appellant-respondent in the said case ST No. 318/21 has given her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C on 11.02.2021 in which she alleged that the door of room where she was living is broken and one boy entered into her room and tried to forcibly establish physical relationship, any how she came out and ran towards her maike which is situated nearby at that time, her mother-in-law, father-in law, Gotni, Bhainsur started blaming her that she called that boy, In the meantime, police came and took her to P.S. concerned.

                  In this connection, Mahendra Mahto, Head of Gram Panchayat, Harli gave a certificate, certifying the illicit relation of the appellant- respondent with her paramour Aftab Ansari, accused of ST no. 318/2021. It has further been stated that in the meantime, due to heavy pressure and force of villagers, the respondent-petitioner had to compromise the Original MTS no. 77/2020 and under the said pressurized compromise, the respondent-petitioner filed a petition that he does not want to proceed with the case any further, and prayed to dispose off the case in the light of the compromise and hence, the said case was disposed of on 03.12.2021. It had further been stated that it had also been compromised between the parties that the appellant-respondent will also withdraw the said two 498A IPC and 3 and 4 DP Act cases lodged against the respondent-petitioner and his family members just after the withdrawal of OS no. 77/2020 but even after passing of more than 6 months, she has not withdrawn the aforesaid two criminal cases, which are still running. Ever after the compromise and disposal of the OS No. 77/2020, the appellant-respondent is not living with the respondent-petitioner nor allowed him to establish physical relation, which is a serious cruelty to the respondent-petitioner by the appellant-respondent. It is further stated that not only this just after passing of the order dated 03.12.2021, on 15.12.2021 the mother-in-law, sister, father-in-law and brother of appellant-respondent committed cognizable crime with the brother of the respondent-petitioner namely Nand Kishore Kumar, for which he lodged a case vide Barkagaon P.S. case no. 15/22 against them u/s 323, 325, 326, 341, 307/ 34 of the I.P.C.

                  On the aforesaid facts, the respondent-petitioner had filed the Original Suit No. 166 of 2022 which had been allowed by dissolving the marriage in between the appellant-respondent and respondent-petitioner against which, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant- respondent (wife).

3. Before this Court, on being notice issued vide order dated 18.11.2024, the respondent-petitioner had appeared.

4. Thereafter, on 14.07.2025, the learned counsel for the appellant-wife had submitted that although the judgment granting divorce is under challenge but during its pendency, the respondent-petitioner (husband) had solemnized marriage and as such, the appellant-wife is not willing to live with the respondent-husband and the learned counsel for the appellant- wife submitted, therefore, to go for settlement in terms of money.

5. Thereafter, vide the said order, this Court had directed the respondent- husband to file affidavit furnishing therein the details of his income as well as his movable and immovable property.

6. Thereafter, the affidavit was filed on behalf of both the parties wherein, in the affidavit filed by the appellant-wife, it has been stated that the respondent-husband is having a grocery shop as also the dealership of the branded goods but the said fact had been disputed by the respondent- husband in the affidavit filed on his behalf stating therein that the respondent-husband is working as a labour and only ears Rs.8,000/- per month.

7. This Court, since, had to pass an order on the issue of alimony, as such, considering the said affidavits, was of the view that a report is required to be called for from the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on the issue of veracity of the source of income of the respondent-husband as also the appellant-wife.

8. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh has filed its report by way of affidavit, in terms of the order dated 03.02.2026. It has been stated in the report regarding the appellant-wife that, at present, she is not engaged in any employment or income-generating activity. It has also been referred therein that she had worked in ICICI Bank for approximately four months during the year 2024, thereafter, she resigned and remained unemployed and is fully dependant on her father. It has also been referred that she is having no independent movable or immovable property in her name.

9. Regarding the respondent-husband, it has been referred in the report that the respondent-husband resides in a double-storied residential building consisting of approximately eight rooms along with other members. It has been referred that the respondent-husband appears to be associated with and benefitting from family-operated commercial supply business conducted from the residential premises. The family possesses approximately 30 kathas of land as orally stated by Sri Kunteshwar Mahto, however, details of paternal/ancestral land were not disclosed during the course of enquiry.

10. The question is that when the respondent-husband has solemnized second marriage, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant- wife, then, no option is left but to go for permanent settlement in terms of money.

11. However, since the appellant-wife is interested in settling the dispute in terms of money [permanent alimony], therefore, this Court is taking the plea in this regard.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-respondent (wife):

12. Learned counsel for the appellant-respondent has submitted that the learned Family Court, Hazaribagh has failed to appreciate the entire evidence placed on record in right perspective as also the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant-respondent has been the victim of continuous abuse, torture and exploitation by the respondent- petitioner and his family.

13. It has been contended that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-respondent, when was minor, was sexually exploited by the respondent-petitioner on the pretext of marriage for about one and a half year and after taking the money from her parents, the respondent-petitioner fled away and thereafter, a case being Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 168 of 2018 was lodged against the family of the respondent-petitioner and thereafter, the matter was compromised and marriage was solemnized.

14. It has also been contended that the appellant-respondent was tortured by her in-laws and constant demand was made from her and it is only after payment of cash and jewelry, the previously filed O.S. No. 70 of 2020 was withdrawn.

15. So far as the allegation of illicit relationship with one Aftab Ansari is concerned, as alleged against the appellant-respondent, it has been submitted that the same is completely false allegation as the mukhiya has tried to settle the grudge with the appellant-respondent and the said case had ended up in acquittal of Aftab Ansari.

16. So far as the allegation of pouring kerosene oil on the respondent- petitioner with the intention to kill him is concerned, it has been submitted that it was the respondent-petitioner who poured the kerosene oil upon the appellant-respondent for which she filed a case as Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 301 of 2021 and thereafter, the respondent-petitioner even tried to kill her by giving poison as a result of which she was admitted is Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh and Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 305 of 2021 was instituted against the respondent-petitioner in which he had been granted bail by this Court.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant-respondent (wife), on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that, therefore, the judgment impugned suffers from error, as such, the same may be quashed and set aside.

18. But, learned counsel for the appellant-respondent has submitted, in addition to the aforesaid submission, that during pendency of the instant case, the respondent-petitioner has solemnized second marriage, as such, the matter may permanently be settled in terms of money by granting permanent alimony as the appellant-respondent is having no source of income for her livelihood and, at present, she is totally dependent on her father as also she is having no movable or immovable property in her name.

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner (husband):

19. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioner has submitted that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated each and every aspect of the matter in right perspective and after dealing with the documents placed on record and on examination of the witnesses, has rightly allowed the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent- petitioner which cannot be said to suffer from an error.

20. It has been contended that soon after the marriage, the appellant- respondent never allowed the respondent-petitioner to establish physical relationship with her. It has also been submitted that the mother of appellant-respondent lodged a false case against the petitioner-respondent and one Sabur Mahto vide Special POCSO Case no. 10/2020, T.R. no.55/2020 arising out of Barkagaon P.S. Case no. 168/18 for sexual exploitation of one minor girl i.e. the respondent-appellant u/s 376 (2), 366 of the I.P.C. read with section 6 of POCSO Act and vide judgment dated 27.02.2020 both respondent-petitioner and Sabur Mahto were acquitted and under pressure of family members of respondent-petitioner and other persons of the society, respondent-petitioner married with the appellant-respondent.

21. It has also been submitted that on the very first night, the appellant- respondent declared that she had love affair with one Muslim boy and she has already married with him.

22. It has also been submitted that on the pressure of the appellant-respondent, the respondent-petitioner even started living separately with his parents. But, in the year 2020, the appellant-respondent sprinkled kerosene oil and tried to kill him.

23. It has also been submitted the appellant-respondent also filed a complaint Case No. 1637/2020 against the respondent-petitioner, his family members and other relations u/s 323, 341, 307, 313, 498A of the I.P.C., section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on totally false, vague and incorrect allegations, which was later on registered as Barkagaon P.S. case no. 301/2021 on 13.12.2021 and for the same offence, the appellant- respondent has again lodged an FIR before Barkagaon P.S. which was registered as Barkagaon case no. 305/dated 14.12.21 against only parents and brother of respondent-petitioner and one Lalo Mahto u/s 328, 307, 498A/ 34 of the I.P.C and section 3/4 of D. P. Act.

24. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner has submitted that, on the aforesaid background, the respondent-petitioner on the ground of adultery, illicit relationship with other person and on cruelty and desertion filed an Original Suit no. 77 of 2020 and during its the pendency of the said O.S. case 77/20, one namely Aftab Ansari of same village was found by the father of the respondent-petitioner in her room indulged in illicit relationship, for which, the father of respondent-petitioner lodged an FIR at Barkagaon PS upon which Barkagaon PS case no. 45/2021 dated 10.02.2021 which has also been certified by Mahendra Mahto, Head of Gram Panchayat, Harli and the Original MTS no. 77/2020 was compromised and the said case was disposed of on in the light of the compromise vide order dated 03.12.2021 wherein it was compromised that the two cases filed by the appellant-respondent will be withdrawn by her but the same has not been acted upon.

25. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner, on the aforesaid facts and circumstances, has submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Family Court by taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter and material available on record in entirety, therefore, the said judgment cannot be said suffer from error, hence, requires no interference.

Analysis:

26. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment.

27. The fact, which is necessary to reiterate herein, is that the appellant- respondent got married with the appellant-respondent and as has been stated by the respondent-petitioner which has been taken note in the impugned judgment that the appellant-respondent never allowed the respondent-petitioner to establish physical relationship with him. It has also been submitted that the mother of appellant-respondent lodged a false case against the petitioner-respondent and one Sabur Mahto vide Special POCSO Case no. 10/2020 for sexual exploitation of the respondent- appellant. It has also been submitted that on the very first night, the appellant-respondent declared that she had love affair with one Muslim boy and she has already married with him. It has also been submitted that in the year 2020, the appellant-respondent sprinkled kerosene oil and tried to kill the respondent-petitioner.

28. It has also been submitted the appellant-respondent also filed a complaint Case No. 1637/2020 against the respondent-petitioner and his family members and other relations under the Dowry Prohibition Act and for the same offence, the appellant-respondent has again lodged an FIR before Barkagaon P.S. which was registered as Barkagaon case no. 305 against the parents and brother of respondent-petitioner and one Lalo Mahto under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

29. It is also the case of the respondent-petitioner that the respondent- petitioner on the ground of adultery, illicit relationship with other person and on cruelty and desertion filed an Original Suit no. 77 of 2020 and during its the pendency of the said O.S. case 77/20, one namely Aftab Ansari of same village was found by the father of the respondent- petitioner in her room indulged in illicit relationship, for which, the father of respondent-petitioner lodged an FIR at Barkagaon PS upon which Barkagaon P.S. case no. 45/2021 dated 10.02.2021 and the Original MTS no. 77/2020 was compromised and the said case was disposed of on in the light of the compromise vide order dated 03.12.2021 wherein it was compromised that the two cases filed by the appellant-respondent will be withdrawn by her but the same has not been acted upon.

30. On the contrary, the appellant-respondent has alleged that she was sexually exploited by the respondent-petitioner on the pretext of marriage for about one and a half year and after taking the money from her parents, the respondent-petitioner fled away and thereafter, a case being Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 168 of 2018 was lodged against the family of the respondent-petitioner and thereafter, the matter was compromised and marriage was solemnized.

31. It is also the case of the appellant-respondent that she was tortured by her in-laws and constant demand was made from her and it is only after payment of cash and jewelry, the previously filed O.S. No. 70 of 2020 was withdrawn.

32. So far as the allegation of illicit relationship with one Aftab Ansari is concerned, as alleged against the appellant-respondent, it has been submitted that the same is completely false allegation as the mukhiya has tried to settle the grudge with the appellant-respondent and the said case had ended up in acquittal of Aftab Ansari.

33. So far as the allegation of pouring kerosene oil on the respondent- petitioner with the intention to kill him is concerned, it has been submitted that it was the respondent-petitioner who poured the kerosene oil upon the appellant-respondent for which she filed a case as Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 301 of 2021 and thereafter, the respondent-petitioner even tried to kill her by giving poison as a result of which she was admitted is Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh and Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 305 of 2021 was instituted against the respondent-petitioner.

34. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent- petitioner had filed original suit being O.S. No. 166 of 2022 which has been allowed by dissolving the marriage by the learned family court after appreciating the material available before it.

35. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the learned family court, the appellant-respondent (wife) has preferred the present appeal. However, learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted before this Court that during pendency of the appeal, the respondent-petitioner (husband) has solemnized second marriage, hence, the appellant- respondent is left with no option but to go for permanent settlement in terms of money, i.e., permanent alimony.

36. This Court in the aforesaid backdrop facts and submission requires to consider as to: “what would be the quantum of permanent alimony to meet the needs of the wife, the appellant herein, on the basis of pleadings available on record and as per the standard of life she would have enjoyed had she been living with the respondent-petitioner?

37. This Court, before considering the aforesaid issue, needs to refer herein the provision of law as contained under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein it has been provided that any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent. For ready reference, Section 25 of the Act, 1955 is quoted as under:

                  “25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.—(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant 1 [the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case], it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.

                  (2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.

                  (3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, 2 [it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just].”

38. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that concept of permanent alimony as provided under Section 25 have been enacted with the object of removing the hardship of the wife or the husband with no independent income sufficient for living or meeting litigant expenses; such a leave can be granted as well who may also be deprived of the same on proof of having sexual intercourse outside the wedlock. It is also settled position of law that the Court may grant permanent alimony to the party while disposing of the main application even if application has been moved; meaning thereby the intent of the Act is to remove the handicap/hardship of a wife of husband by passing an appropriate order at the appropriate stage either under Section 24 or 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The basic behind this is to sustain the live of husband or wife, if having no sufficient source of income.

39. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the intent of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act in catena of Judgments wherein it has been observed that Section 25 of Act 1955 is an enabling provision. It empowers the court in a matrimonial case to consider facts and circumstances of the spouse applying and deciding whether or not to grant permanent alimony. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 provides that a matrimonial Court exercising the jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act may at the time of passing a decree or at any time subsequent thereto on an Application made to it, order to pay maintenance.

40. Thus, a power is conferred on the Matrimonial Court to grant permanent alimony or maintenance on the basis of a decree of divorce passed under the Hindu Marriage Act even subsequent to the date of passing of the decree on the basis of an application made in that behalf. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 confers a power on the Court to vary, modify or rescind the order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 in case of change in circumstances. The power under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 is an independent power. The said power can be exercised if the Court is satisfied that the wife in whose favour an order under Subsection (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made has not remained chaste. In such event, at the instance of the other party, the Court may vary, modify or rescind the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

41. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200.For ready reference, paragraph 14 of the judgment is quoted as under:

                  “14. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers power upon the court to grant a permanent alimony to either spouse who claims the same by making an application. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act confers ample power on the court to vary, modify or discharge any order for permanent alimony or permanent maintenance that may have been made in any proceeding under the Act under the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 25. In exercising the power under Section 25(2), the court would have regard to the “change in the circumstances of the parties”. There must be some change in the circumstances of either party which may have to be taken into account when an application is made under sub-section (2) of Section 25 for variation, modification or rescission of the order as the court may deem just.”

42. We may note here that an amendment has been brought to Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the Act No. 68 of 1976 with effect from 27th May 1996. Earlier, it was provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 that if the Court was satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made has not remained chaste, it shall rescind the order. The words “it shall rescind the order” appearing in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 were replaced by the said amendment by the words “it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order …..”. The legislature in its wisdom by the said amendment has provided that after the facts stated in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act are established, the Court may vary, modify or rescind any such order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, after 1976, there is a discretion conferred on the Court by Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of declining to rescind, vary or modify the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 thereof, even if on an Application made by the husband, it is established that the wife has not remained chaste after the decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 25.

43. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 while appreciating the core of Section 25 of the Act 1955 has observed thatfor permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent's own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:

                  12. As per Section 25, while considering the claim for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent's own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. It is further seen that the court considering such claim has to consider all the above relevant materials and determine the amount which is to be just for living standard. No fixed formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has to be in the nature of things which depend on various facts and circumstances of each case. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute. The courts also have to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. These are all the broad principles courts have to be kept (sic keep) in mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony.

44. It needs to refer herein that no arithmetic formula can be adopted for grant of permanent alimony to wife. However, status of parties, their respective social needs, financial capacity of husband and other obligations must be taken into account. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

                  33. We have reproduced the aforesaid orders to highlight that the husband had agreed to buy a flat at Hyderabad. However, when the matter was listed thereafter, there was disagreement with regard to the locality of the flat arranged by the husband and, therefore, the matter was heard on merits. We have already opined that the husband has made out a case for divorce by proving mental cruelty. As a decree is passed, the wife is entitled to permanent alimony for her sustenance. Be it stated, while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. In Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar [(2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] (SCC p. 116, para 12) while dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, this Court has observed that while granting permanent alimony, the court is required to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party.

45. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has extensively dealt with the issue of granting interim/permanent alimony and has categorically held that the objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the Court while considering the issue of maintenance, should consider the factors like the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:

                  77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

                  78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290]

                  79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.

                  80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [ReemaSalkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]

                  81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.

46. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan [2025 SCC OnLine SC1259] has enhanced the amount of alimony subject to increase of alimony on every two years.

47. This Court has considered the factual aspect of the said case and on perusal of the fact, referred therein, it is evident that the appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on 18.06.1997. A son was born to them on 05.08.1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the appellant-wife. Subsequently, the appellant-wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 in the same suit under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son. The Trial Court, by order dated 14.01.2010, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant- wife and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The appellant-wife then instituted Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Trial Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that the respondent-husband had failed to prove cruelty. Aggrieved, the respondent filed FAT No. 122 of 2015 before the High Court of Calcutta. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-wife filed CAN No. 4505 of 2025 seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- for herself and Rs. 20,000/- for the son, along with Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses. The High Court, by order dated 14.05.2015, directed the respondent-husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Subsequently, by order dated 14.07.2016, the High Court noted that the respondent-husband was drawing a net monthly salary of Rs. 69,000/- and enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs. 20,000/- per month. Finally, the High Court, by the impugned order dated 25.06.2019, allowed the respondent's appeal, granted a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and directed the respondent-husband to redeem the mortgage on the flat where the appellant-wife was residing and transfer the title deed to her name by 31.08.2019; allow the appellant-wife and their son to continue residing in the said flat; and continue to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, subject to a 5% increase every three years. Additionally, the High Court directed payment of educational expenses for the son's university education and Rs. 5,000/- per month for private tuition.

48. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the appellant-wife had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court.

49. The Hon’ble Apex Court, by interim order dated 07.11.2023, noting the absence of representation on behalf of the respondent-husband despite proof of service, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs. 75,000/- with effect from 01.11.2023. The respondent-husband subsequently entered appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim order.

50. The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month, which the High Court made final, was originally awarded as interim maintenance. She submits that the respondent-husband has a monthly income of approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- and the quantum of alimony awarded is not commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the parties during the marriage.

51. In response, the respondent-husband submits that his current net monthly income is Rs. 1,64,039/-, earned from his employment at the Institute of Hotel Management, Taratala, Kolkata. He has placed on record salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for the year 2023-2024. It is further stated that he was earlier employed with the Taj Hotel, drawing a gross annual salary of Rs. 21,92,525/-. He also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs. 1,72,088/-, and that he has remarried, has a dependent family, and aged parents. The respondent-husband contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially dependent.

52. The Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court has come to the conclusion that it requires revision. The said revision is on the basis of the respondent- husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings which establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. It has also been observed, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.

53. Therefore, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. The said amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, the Hon’ble Apex Court has expressed its view that the Court is not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. It has been clarified that that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.

54. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court was modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the said order is being quoted as under:

                  “7. Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The appellant- wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.

                  8. 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. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.

                  9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, as noted above.”

55. In the instant case herein, in terms of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (supra), this Court had called for the affidavits from both the parties regarding the details of income as well as properties.

56. The affidavit, in respect thereof, has been filed on behalf of both the parties wherein the appellant-wife has taken the stand respondent-husband is having a grocery shop as also is having with the dealership of the branded goods as also is having two storey building where he is living with the son and the second wife but the said fact had been contradicted by the respondent-husband in the affidavit filed on his behalf stating therein that he works as a labour and only earns around Rs.8,000/- per month.

57. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 03.02.2026 had called upon a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh regarding the veracity of the source of income of the respondent-husband and also of the appellant-wife.

58. We have perused the report filed in terms of the aforesaid order wherein it has been stated regarding the appellant-wife that, at present, she is not engaged in any employment or income-generating activity. It has also been referred therein that she had worked in ICICI Bank for approximately four months during the year 2024, thereafter, she resigned and remained unemployed and is fully dependant on her father. It has also been referred that she is having no independent movable or immovable property in her name.

59. Regarding the respondent-husband, it has been referred in the report that the respondent-husband resides in a double-storied residential building consisting of approximately eight rooms along with other members. It has been referred that the respondent-husband appears to be associated with and benefitting from family-operated commercial supply business conducted from the residential premises. The family possesses approximately 30 kathas of land as orally stated by Sri Kunteshwar Mahto, however, details of paternal/ancestral land were not disclosed during the course of enquiry.

60. Submission has been made on behalf of appellant-wife that the respondent-husband is having a grocery shop and dealership of branded goods and lives in a two-storied building as also he is having landed property and most importantly the respondent-husband has solemnized second marriage but the appellant-wife, who is living with her father, has to survive on its own as she is having no source of income and is fully dependent on her father.

61. Further submission has been made that considering the life expectancy of 72 years and the fact that the appellant-wife is around 22 years of age and further taking into consideration the future inflation etc., though a huge amount would require but at least Rs. 50,00,000/- [Fifty lakhs] would require for her survival on the interest earned from that.

62. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has further submitted that even taking the ratio laid down in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan (supra) at least Rs.20,000/- for wife is required for survival and for which if she deposits the amounts so given by the appellant then it would even fetch the amount of approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month.

63. This Court, considering the submissions advanced on behalf of parties and law laid by Hon’ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, has again perused the affidavit filed by the respondent-husband and the report submitted by way of affidavit by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh and found therefrom that the respondent-husband resides in a double- storied residential building consisting of approximately eight rooms along with other members and the respondent-husband is associated with and benefitting from family-operated commercial supply business conducted from the residential premises as also the family possesses approximately 30 kathas of land as has been orally stated by Sri Kunteshwar Mahto, as per the report, however, details of paternal/ancestral land were not disclosed during the course of enquiry. Whereas for the appellant-wife has no source of income and even no immovable and movable property in her name and is completely dependent upon her father.

64. At present, the appellant-wife is only around 22 years of age and considering the life expectancy of even 72 years, she has to survive for long 50 years on the amount of permanent alimony given by her husband beating the inflation etc.

65. As per submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-wife that the respondent-husband has solemnized second marriage and there is a son from their wedlock, as such, there is no chance of her going back and staying with her husband even if the impugned judgment would be quashed and set aside, hence, she only expects Rs.50 lakhs as alimony for survival of herself.

66. This Court is conscious that the respondent-husband is also to survive and he has other liability and responsibility but vis-à-vis it is also his utmost duty to maintain the standard of life of the appellant-wife, she would have enjoyed during subsistence of the marriage as per income and status of his husband, the respondent herein.

67. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court thought it proper that a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- [Rupees Thirty Five lakhs Only] in total as one time permanent alimony would be just, fair and reasonable, for sustenance of the appellant-wife, who has no other source of income than the alimony for her livelihood and sustenance.

68. In such view of the matter, the respondent-husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- [Rupees Thirty-Five lakhs Only ], which shall be paid by him in four equal installments within a period of 12 months from the date of passing of the order and first installment shall be paid within a period of one month from passing of the order.

69. This Court, considering the factual aspect involved in the case and particularly the fact that due to financial crunch the survival of the appellant-wife may not get disturbed, grants liberty to the appellant-wife that if the amount is not credited to her account, as per the direction passed by this Court, the appellant-wife will be at liberty to approach the Court of law in accordance with law.

70. This Court, however, hope and trust that the respondent-husband will not invite such situation and will abide by the direction so passed by this Court for permanent alimony in favour of respondent-wife.

71. With the aforesaid the directions and observations, as made hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed of and decreed in the above terms.

72. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.