RANCHI: <\/em>A Pune-based software engineer who claimed that his wife repeatedly accused him of affairs, threatened suicide, and mentally harassed him, finally got divorce<\/strong> from the Jharkhand High Court<\/strong>. But despite granting divorce in favour of the husband, the Court increased the wife\u2019s one-time alimony from \u20b940 lakh to \u20b970 lakh<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad<\/strong> and Justice Sanjay Prasad<\/strong> passed the judgment on May 12, 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband told the Court that after marriage in 2019, he and his wife shifted to Pune, where he was working as a Senior Software Engineer. He alleged that after some time, his wife started accusing him of having illicit relationships with women colleagues and created daily fights and mental pressure.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment records that the husband claimed his wife \u201cstarted accusing the petitioner for having illicit relationship with his colleagues in the office\u201d<\/em><\/strong> and \u201cstarted to mentally harass and abuse the petitioner.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband also alleged that the wife refused physical relations<\/strong> and both started living in separate rooms<\/strong> despite staying in the same house.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that the husband further claimed his wife and mother-in-law threatened to implicate him in false dowry and sexual harassment<\/strong> cases. According to the judgment, the husband stated that he suffered \u201ctrauma and clinical depression\u201d<\/em><\/strong> because of continuous mental cruelty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife denied the allegations and accused the husband of having relations with another married woman. She also alleged that her husband tried to force her into physical relations with another man. However, the Family Court accepted the husband\u2019s case and granted divorce on cruelty grounds.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court had earlier ordered the husband to pay \u20b940 lakh as one-time permanent alimony<\/strong>. Both sides challenged that order before the High Court. The wife demanded more money, while the husband argued that the amount was excessive and fixed without proper reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During proceedings before the High Court, the wife\u2019s lawyer stated that there was- The High Court mainly examined the issue of permanent alimony. The husband filed salary documents showing that his monthly income was around \u20b92.24 lakh.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n While deciding the amount, the Court observed that maintenance should not become punishment for the husband, but should also ensure survival of the dependent spouse<\/strong>. The Bench said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also observed<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n At the same time, the Bench acknowledged that the husband also has responsibilities and liabilities<\/strong>. The Court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis Court is conscious that the respondent-husband is also to survive and he has other liability and responsibility.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n After considering the husband\u2019s salary, the wife\u2019s financial condition, future inflation and life expectancy, the Court enhanced the permanent alimony amount to \u20b970 lakh<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA lump sum of \u20b970,00,000\/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) would be just, fair, and reasonable.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court directed that the amount should be paid in four instalments within 12 months<\/strong>, with the first instalment to be paid within two months.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cNo chance of re-union since the respondent husband has already solemnized marriage.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Mentioned<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section \/ Judgment<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> Relevance in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Allows divorce on the ground of cruelty<\/td> Husband filed divorce case alleging mental cruelty by wife<\/td><\/tr> Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Deals with permanent alimony and maintenance after divorce<\/td> High Court enhanced permanent alimony from \u20b940 lakh to \u20b970 lakh under this provision<\/td><\/tr> Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Provides interim maintenance<\/a> during pendency of matrimonial proceedings<\/td> Discussed by Court while explaining maintenance principles<\/td><\/tr> Section 19(1), Family Courts Act<\/a>, 1984<\/strong><\/td> Gives right to appeal against Family Court orders<\/td> Both husband and wife filed appeals before Jharkhand High Court<\/td><\/tr> Section 5, Limitation Act<\/strong><\/td> Allows condonation of delay in filing cases\/appeals<\/td> High Court condoned 3-day delay in filing wife\u2019s appeal<\/td><\/tr> Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code<\/strong><\/td> Provides monthly maintenance to wife, children, and parents<\/td> Mentioned while discussing Supreme Court precedents on maintenance<\/td><\/tr> Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324<\/strong><\/td> Landmark Supreme Court<\/a> judgment on maintenance law<\/td> Main precedent relied upon for fixing alimony principles<\/td><\/tr> Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court judgment discussing reasonable maintenance benchmark<\/td> Court referred to 25% salary benchmark principle<\/td><\/tr> Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court judgment on factors for permanent alimony<\/td> Used to explain financial capacity, lifestyle, and fairness<\/td><\/tr> U. Sree v. U. Srinivas<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court ruling stating no fixed formula exists for alimony<\/td> Court observed maintenance depends on facts of every case<\/td><\/tr> Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel<\/strong><\/td> Recent Supreme Court ruling on financial capacity of husband<\/td> Relied upon while assessing husband\u2019s income and liabilities<\/td><\/tr> Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court ruling on fair and balanced alimony<\/td> Court used it to explain reasonable and just maintenance<\/td><\/tr> Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court case enhancing maintenance considering inflation<\/td> Referred while discussing future financial security of wife<\/td><\/tr> Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court ruling that earning wife can still get maintenance<\/td> Court clarified maintenance cannot be denied merely because wife is educated<\/td><\/tr> Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court ruling on wife\u2019s parents\u2019 financial condition<\/td> Court held husband cannot avoid responsibility by citing wife\u2019s family wealth<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n