Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 09/10/2026

Case Overview

  • Appellant: Reena Devi, daughter of Devananda Singh, wife of Mithilesh Kumar, residing in East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
  • Respondents: 1) State of Jharkhand, 2) Mithilesh Kumar (husband), 3) M.D., Tata Motor, Jamshedpur.
  • The appeal (First Appeal No. 114 of 2016) under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenges the Family Court judgment dated 22‑04‑2016 that granted divorce to the husband under Section 13(1)(i‑a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
  • Marriage solemnised on 23‑02‑2003 in Jamshedpur; wife stayed 24 hours at marital home, then moved to Ropar, Punjab, where husband was employed with Ambuja Cement. She returned after 1½ months.
  • Subsequent criminal cases: respondent‑father filed IPC‑498A; wife filed IPC‑125 and IPC‑498A against husband.
  • Husband alleged cruelty; wife admitted filing two cases but claimed the family‑court case was compromised as she wanted to live with husband.
  • Dowry demand alleged: Rs 1,50,000 cash, gold/silver ornaments, TV set, almirah, utensils, Hero Honda motorcycle.
  • Original Family Court framed two issues: (i) whether husband was treated with cruelty, (ii) reliefs entitled.
  • Family Court found cruelty proved and granted divorce; appellant filed this appeal.
  • Multiple mediation attempts (JHALSA, District Legal Services Authority) failed; several adjournments in 2018‑2019; case dismissed for default on 10‑01‑2019.
  • Appeal restored on 24‑07‑2024 (C.M.P. No.88 of 2019). Subsequent notices, police involvement, and further mediation attempts also failed.
  • On 23‑07‑2026 the matter was heard on merits; counsel for appellant stated husband had entered a second marriage on 10‑07‑2018 and only alimony remained.
  • Court ordered parties to file affidavits per Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) for asset disclosure.
  • Respondent‑husband could not initially file affidavit; police produced him on 03‑08‑2026.
  • Counsel submitted that respondent‑husband works for Tata Motors; Tata Motors was directed to become a party and file affidavit on his salary.
  • Affidavits filed: respondent‑husband disclosed no house in his name, residing in ancestral house with mother (79 yrs) and wife; mother requires medical care.
  • Salary slips from Feb 2024 to July 2026 attached. July 2026 gross salary Rs 47,498.18; net pay Rs 34,372.18.
  • Tata Motors affidavit confirmed same salary and projected gross annual salary Rs 6,01,213; projected net annual salary Rs 5,26,213.
  • Respondent‑husband’s affidavit stated second marriage on 10‑07‑2018, living with wife and mother in same mess; total liability on him.
  • Counsel for appellant argued no chance of reconciliation; wife has no income and seeks one‑time settlement.
  • Counsel for respondent submitted counter‑affidavit with income details.
  • Court noted that permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act depends on husband’s income, wife’s needs, conduct, and standard of living; cited numerous Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Vinny Parmvir Parmar, Kalyan Dey Chowdhury, Rajnesh v. Neha, Kiran Jyot Maini, Pravin Kumar Jain).
  • Court observed that 25 % of net salary is a reasonable benchmark but not mandatory.
  • Considering husband’s net salary Rs 34,372.18, 25 % equals approx. Rs 8,593; however, the Court evaluated life expectancy of wife (≈23 years) and concluded a lump‑sum permanent alimony of Rs 20,00,000 is just and fair.
  • The Court ordered the lump‑sum to be paid in four equal installments over 12 months, with the first installment within two months of the order.
  • Enforcement provision: if amount not credited, wife may approach court for execution.
  • The original Family Court decree of 22‑04‑2016 is affirmed, modified to include the Rs 20,00,000 alimony payment.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is allowed; the decree of divorce dated 22‑04‑2016 stands.
  • Respondent‑husband (employed with Tata Motors) must pay a lump‑sum permanent alimony of Rs 20,00,000 to appellant‑wife, in four equal installments within 12 months (first installment within two months).
  • No further mandatory maintenance for the son (now 26 years) is ordered; voluntary assistance is permitted.
  • Directions for enforcement and liberty to approach court for non‑payment are included.

Topics: Alimony, Family Law, Court Judgment