Jharkhand High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, by the wife demanding alimony for her two daughters from her husband, the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad* and Arun Kumar Rai JJ., ordered the husband to pay Rs 40,00,000 (Rs 20,00,000 each for two daughters) within four months considering the needs of two daughters and their future survival including food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, extracurricular activities as well as marriage.
Further, the Court disposed of the appeal and opined that the alimony was not intended to penalize the husband or the wife but to ensure the child’s well-being and financial security.
Background
In the present case, the marriage between the parties was solemnized in November 2007 according to the Hindu rituals and were blessed with two daughters, the eldest one born in the 2008 and the youngest born in the year 2013. They lived as husband and wife till September 2012 and thereafter their relationship soured.
Before the Family Court, the husband contended that he was the only son of his parents and his wife never cared to look after his parents, also that his wife refused to live with him in the future without showing any reason and refused to share bed with him, which caused utter humiliation and cruelty to him resulting into a deserted life. In view of the alleged cruelty and desertion, the Family Court passed an ex-parte order in favor of the husband by dissolving the marriage. The wife, being aggrieved by the ex-parte order, approached this Court.
The wife contended that the husband had obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce behind her back and immediately contracted second marriage; therefore, now there was no chance of re-union, thus, she confined her prayer with respect to the well-being of her two daughters, which were born from their wedlock.
The wife, in her affidavit, had stated that she was living in a rented house with her two daughters and had no other source of income except her salary. Further, she disclosed her salary to be Rs 85,270 and attached her salary slip in support. She further disclosed that she had taken a personal loan of Rs 10,00,000 and had stated that approximately Rs 50,000 was incurred monthly upon the two daughters. She had further contended that her husband had a handsome salary of Rs 78,800 in addition thereto 53% Dearness allowance, House Rent Allowance and other allowances and perks, as per Central Government. Further. She stated that the husband had his own house besides two acres of landed property at his parental place. Since she was working as a Government Teacher and could lead her life without any financial hurdle, she had demanded permanent alimony from the husband for her daughters only.
The affidavit filed by the husband stated that he had no other source of income other than salary. He did disclose his designation as Chief Loco Inspector, but he had nowhere disclosed his salary. While disclosing the liability, he had shown the loan of Rs 28,00,000. He had undertaken that he would take care of his two daughters. Further, in the affidavit filed, he had stated that he was ready to provide Rs 5,00,000 to each of his daughters by way of fixed deposits in their name.
Analysis and Decision
Considering that the wife had not disputed the dissolution of marriage, the Court stated that the only issue that remained to be decided was with respect to the issue of permanent alimony.
The Court opined that in divorce cases, both parents were duty bound to contribute to their child’s financial needs and well-being, regardless of their marital status. Further, the Court stated that the specific amount and duration of alimony were to be determined considering factors like the food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, extracurricular activities, the parents’ financial capacity (inclusive of income, assets, liabilities), and the lifestyle the child enjoyed during the marriage and if any of the parents fail to pay child support, the other parent could seek legal recourse to enforce the Court order, including salary attachment or other actions to recover the unpaid amount.
Considering the affidavits filed by the husband, the Court opined that he cunningly did not annex the salary slip for the reasons best known to him. The Court further stated that it showed his conduct as on one hand he had undertaken before this Court that he had to take care of his daughters and was ready to extend all support, in particular monetary support, but on the other hand, he did not want to disclose his salary in unequivocal term even though he was a Government Servant working in Indian Railway on a higher post. The Court treated it very seriously and condemned such conduct of the husband.
Considering the pleadings available on record, the Court observed that Rs 5,00,000 (5 lakhs) to each daughter was not enough taking into consideration the income of the husband. Further, the Court agreed with the wife’s submission that since the children are girls, besides expenses towards education, higher studies and medical care there would be huge expense on their marriage as the daughters would be living with their mother, who is now divorcee, there would be great difficulty in getting them married and in that situation if there would be insufficiency of monetary support it would be very difficult for the wife to get them married in a society of their level at least.
The Court opined that the alimony is not intended to penalize the husband or the wife rather to ensure the child’s well-being and financial security, and the alimony should be decided upon taking into consideration the lifestyle the child enjoyed during the marriage besides other factors. The Court further observed that the father is duty bound to maintain his child irrespective of the income of the mother.
Therefore, the Court, referring to Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, (2025) 2 SCC 227, and the factual aspect involved in the present case, viewed that for the needs of two daughters and for their future survival including food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, extracurricular activities and the marriage, an amount in total of Rs 40,00,000 was required to be given by the husband.
The Court directed the husband to pay Rs 40,00,000 (Rs 20,00,000 each for two daughters), within four months, which shall be deposited, by way of fix deposit, separately in two joint accounts, holder of which be the mother and respective daughters [i.e., one in the name of mother and elder daughter and another in the name of mother and younger daughter] for the purpose of higher studies and for marriage etc. of the daughters.
The Court disposed of the appeal and stated that in case of non-adherence of the order by the husband, the wife would be at liberty to make an appropriate application before the Court concerned.
[Vandana Kumari v. Greesh Babu Mathur, F.A. No. 230 of 2019, decided on 4-9-2025]
*Judgement authored by Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: L.C.N. Sahdeo, Advocate, Shourya Dwivedi, Advocate and Yash Raj Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Rohitashya Roy, Advocate and Oishi Das, Advocate