Jharkhand High Court hikes ex-wife’s alimony to Rs 40 lakh to counter ‘inflation, medical needs’

“The appellant-wife has to survive for her livelihood, as well as she has to take care of herself medically due to her growing age, on the amount of permanent alimony so given by the respondent-husband,” the court said on June 19.

Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad found it necessary to examine the husband’s financial position before deciding the question of permanent alimony.

It added, “At present, the appellant-wife is 55 years of age and taking into life expectancy of even 72 years, she has to survive for a long 17 years on the amount of permanent alimony given by her husband, beating the inflation etc, in addition to medical exigency due to growing age.”

Why high court increased alimony

• The judges took a different view on the issue of permanent alimony.
• The court observed that the wife had no independent source of income and was dependent on financial support for survival.
• It also noted that she was already 55 years old and would have to sustain herself for many more years while facing rising living costs and increasing healthcare expenses.
• The bench further held that the husband’s obligation towards his wife did not disappear merely because the marriage had ended.
• It said the wife was entitled to financial security consistent with the social and economic status she would have enjoyed had the marriage continued.
• Taking into account the husband’s salary, pensionary benefits, expected retirement corpus, the wife’s age, future medical needs and inflationary pressures, the court concluded that the family court’s award of Rs 10 lakh was insufficient.

Marriage in 1984, separation in 1990

The couple married on May 29, 1984, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. They have a daughter.

The husband claimed that his wife was unwilling to live in the matrimonial home and frequently returned to her parental house. According to him, she left the matrimonial home in 1990 with their minor daughter, and despite repeated attempts by him and his family members, she never returned.

He also told the court that a criminal case under Section 498A (cruelty to married woman by husband or his relatives) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) filed by the wife in 1992 eventually ended in a compromise. Later, a maintenance dispute was also settled, following which he began paying monthly maintenance to her.

The wife, however, alleged that her husband had developed an illicit relationship with another woman and that she was forced to leave because of his conduct. She maintained that she had been living separately due to his actions and not by choice.

Family court granted divorce, Rs 10 lakh alimony

The husband subsequently approached the Family Court in Jamtara seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

After examining the evidence, the court allowed the divorce petition in Original Suit No. 80 of 2019 and granted the wife a lump-sum permanent alimony of Rs 10 lakh.

Challenging the order before the high court, the wife argued that the amount was grossly inadequate considering that her husband was a railway employee earning more than Rs 81,000 per month and was on the verge of retirement with substantial retiral benefits expected.

HC sought details of salary, retirement dues

• The high court found it necessary to examine the husband’s financial position before deciding the question of permanent alimony.
• The bench impleaded the general manager of the office where the husband was employed, and directed authorities to furnish details of his salary, pension and retirement benefits.
• An affidavit submitted before the court revealed that the man was serving as a senior technician (MV driver) in Level-6 of the Pay Matrix and was due to retire on August 31, 2026.
• The records showed that he was entitled to significant retirement benefits, including gratuity, pension commutation, leave encashment and other service-related dues.

‘Dead wood marriage’

• While examining the divorce aspect, the high court noted that the parties had admittedly been living separately since 1990.
• The bench observed that there was no realistic possibility of reunion and described the relationship as a “dead wood marriage” that had lost its emotional and practical significance.
• Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the court said forcing such parties to remain legally tied would only prolong their suffering and serve no useful purpose.
• Accordingly, the court upheld the decree of divorce granted by the family court.

Rs 40 lakh permanent alimony ordered

The high court consequently enhanced the permanent alimony from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 40 lakh.

It directed the husband to pay the amount in four equal instalments within 12 months, with the first instalment to be paid within one month from the date of the judgment.

The court also granted liberty to the wife to initiate appropriate legal proceedings in the event of default.