Top News

In a notable divorce case in Jharkhand, a husband faced a hefty financial obligation after seeking divorce due to his wife's cruelty. The court mandated that he pay a one-time alimony of ₹30 lakhs.

The Jharkhand High Court recently upheld a family court's decision from September 2023, which granted the husband a divorce based on the grounds of cruelty. The court emphasized that the alimony amount should enable the wife to maintain a standard of living comparable to what she was accustomed to during the marriage.

Court's Justification for the Alimony Amount

The judges, Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad, stated that the alimony should reflect the wife's lifestyle, the conditions of both parties, their needs, and the husband's ability to pay. Considering these factors, the ₹30 lakhs amount was deemed appropriate.

The court also highlighted the husband's responsibility to provide a living standard for his wife that mirrors what she experienced during their marriage, despite his own financial obligations.

Background of the Case

According to reports, the couple married in July 2018 following Hindu customs. The husband expressed concerns about the limited attendance from his wife's family during the wedding, yet he proceeded with the marriage. He alleged that after the wedding, his wife and her family prevented her from returning to his home for extended periods without justification.

Allegations by the Husband

The husband claimed that when he attempted to bring his wife home, her family insisted that he must live as a 'ghar jamai' (live-in son-in-law) and sever ties with his own family. Despite these challenges, he tried to salvage the marriage, and after several community meetings, his wife moved in with him in January 2019.

He reported that his mother had given jewelry to his wife as per family tradition, but she displayed indifference towards her in-laws and refused to take on household responsibilities. He also accused her of having a volatile temperament, often leading to disputes over trivial matters. Furthermore, he noted that she distanced herself from him and avoided physical intimacy, later revealing that she suffered from leprosy.

Trial Court's Findings

The trial court concluded that the husband successfully proved the allegations of cruelty and granted him the right to divorce. The wife subsequently appealed to the High Court, claiming that the husband had remarried and was seeking a lump-sum alimony.

Husband's Income Discrepancies

In its ruling, the High Court noted that the couple married in 2018, and the husband filed for divorce in 2021, citing cruelty, desertion, and serious illness as grounds. He claimed to have a low income, relying on tutoring for his livelihood. However, the court found discrepancies in his income tax returns, which indicated an annual income ranging from ₹19 lakhs to ₹32 lakhs.

Court's Decision on Alimony

The court recognized the husband's stable income while noting that the wife had no means of support and would need to rely on the interest from the lump-sum amount for her living expenses. It also considered future inflation in its calculations.

The court pointed out that the average life expectancy for women in India is around 70 years. Given that the wife is 37, the court calculated the permanent alimony based on the next 33 years, arriving at the ₹30 lakhs figure.

Determining Permanent Alimony

The High Court clarified that there is no fixed formula for determining permanent alimony; rather, it takes into account the social status, needs of both parties, the husband's financial capacity, and other responsibilities.

Arguments from the Wife's Lawyer

The wife's attorney, Sumir Prasad, argued that his client wished to remain with her husband, but since he had remarried and refused to accept her back, the only remaining issue was alimony. He emphasized that the wife had no source of income.

Conversely, the husband's lawyer, Lukesh Kumar, stated that they did not wish to delve into the merits of the case and that the husband was willing to provide ₹7,500 per month in alimony, which the court deemed insufficient, leading to the order for a one-time payment of ₹30 lakhs.