Jharkhand High Court in Manoj Kumar v. Sushma Dey (F.A. No. 55 of 2023, decided on 14 October 2025) delivered a significant ruling on spousal support and permanent alimony. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar directed a husband—who had remarried during the pendency of divorce proceedings—to pay ₹60,000 per month as permanent alimony and child support to his first wife and their minor son.
The Court’s ruling not only dissolved the marriage but also reaffirmed the principle that remarriage does not absolve a husband of his legal and moral responsibility toward his estranged spouse and dependent child.
This judgment represents an important development in matrimonial jurisprudence under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and reflects the evolving judicial approach toward fairness, dignity, and financial security of women after marital breakdowns.
Factual Background
The appellant, Manoj Kumar, serving as a Deputy Manager at the State Bank of India, married Sushma Dey on 14 February 2011 before the Special Marriage Officer, Ranchi. The couple was blessed with a son on 19 February 2012. While it was the first marriage for the husband, it was the second for the wife, whose earlier marriage had been dissolved by a competent court.
The relationship soon soured. The husband alleged that Sushma was quarrelsome and hot-tempered, that she mistreated him and his family, and that she eventually left his company in March 2014 “without rhyme or reason.” The wife, however, painted a starkly different picture—accusing her husband of cruelty, alcoholism, and dowry harassment, and contending that he wanted to remarry another woman.
Both parties initiated multiple proceedings against each other, including:
- Maintenance Case No. 96 of 2017 (under Section 125 CrPC), in which Sushma was granted ₹7,000 per month.
- Mahila P.S. Case No. 49 of 2017 (under Sections 498-A, 341, 323, 504, 506 IPC), which was later compromised.
- Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 412 of 2014 filed by Manoj under Section 9 HMA (Restitution of Conjugal Rights), decreed in his favour on 7 September 2017, but never acted upon by the wife.
When reconciliation failed, Manoj sought divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion. The Family Court, Bokaro, dismissed his petition in February 2023, prompting this first appeal before the High Court.
Proceedings Before the High Court
At the appellate stage, the Bench repeatedly encouraged settlement—either reunion or compensation. The Court noted that Manoj was employed in a secure government post and, therefore, financially capable of supporting his wife and child.
However, during the pendency of the appeal, Sushma informed the Court that the husband had already solemnised a second marriage in 2019. With remarriage confirmed, reconciliation became impossible; the Court therefore proceeded to consider dissolution of marriage coupled with determination of permanent alimony.
Both parties were directed to file detailed affidavits of assets and liabilities in terms of the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324]. While Sushma filed her affidavit disclosing that her contract job with Jharcraft had ended and that she was unemployed, the husband initially failed to provide full disclosure of his assets—especially his movable and immovable properties—despite repeated directions.
Submissions of the Parties
Appellant-Husband’s Contentions
- Sushma was a “working lady” earlier employed by Jharkhand Silk Textile & Handicraft Development Corporation Ltd. (Jharcraft), earning ₹20,000 per month, and hence not entitled to maintenance.
- She held bank accounts and National Savings Certificates, indicating financial independence.
- He had to maintain his 76-year-old father and had outstanding bank loans of over ₹63 lakh.
- His monthly salary was ₹65,536 (after deductions).
- Nonetheless, he expressed readiness to bear educational expenses for his son.
Respondent-Wife’s Contentions
- Her contractual employment had terminated in April 2025; she was currently unemployed and financially dependent on her 74-year-old ailing father.
- After being ousted from the matrimonial home in 2019, she bore the full cost of her son’s schooling—from DPS Bhagalpur to Vikas Vidyalaya (Ranchi) and later Ayyappa Public School (Bokaro).
- The husband remarried in 2019, violating earlier court orders, and had stopped paying school fees after six months.
- Manoj’s actual salary as Deputy Manager at SBI Godda Branch was about ₹1.5 lakh per month, but he manipulated deductions to show a lower take-home figure.
- His father was a pensioner, and he owned ancestral and newly acquired properties, including a flat and a car.
She sought a “reasonable and just” permanent alimony sufficient to maintain the same standard of living she enjoyed during marriage.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether, after the husband’s remarriage, dissolution of the marriage between the parties should be granted.
- What should be the quantum of permanent alimony payable to the wife and minor son under Section 25 HMA?
Statutory Framework and Judicial Principles
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Empowers courts to award “permanent alimony and maintenance” to either spouse, considering:
- the respondent’s income and property,
- the applicant’s income and property,
- the conduct of the parties, and
- other relevant circumstances.
It further allows modification of orders upon change of circumstances and even rescission if the beneficiary remarries or is unchaste.
Judicial Precedents Cited
The Bench comprehensively discussed major Supreme Court rulings that illuminate the principles governing alimony:
- Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017 14 SCC 200) – Recognised that courts have wide discretion to vary or modify maintenance considering changed circumstances.
- Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar (2011 13 SCC 112) – Laid down factors such as the parties’ status, needs, and the husband’s capacity to pay; maintenance must ensure the wife lives in “reasonable comfort.”
- U. Sree v. U. Srinivas (2013 2 SCC 114) – Held that no arithmetic formula can be applied; courts must weigh social status, needs, and obligations.
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021 2 SCC 324) – Directed courts to ensure that the dependent spouse is not driven to destitution; listed comprehensive factors and required affidavits of disclosure.
- Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259) – Recently enhanced permanent alimony to ₹50,000 per month (with 5% biennial increment) considering inflation and lifestyle; this judgment served as the guiding precedent for the present case.
Court’s Analysis
After evaluating the evidence and affidavits, the Bench found:
- The husband’s gross salary was ₹1,49,753 per month, including allowances but excluding house rent (implying free or reimbursed accommodation).
- His deductions, such as income tax (₹12,543 per month) and loan repayments, were primarily for asset creation (e.g., house loans), which could not be treated as a financial burden, reducing his capacity to pay.
- He failed to disclose full details of his properties and investments, warranting an adverse inference.
- The wife was presently unemployed, had lost her contractual job, and was solely supporting the minor child.
The Court underscored that Section 25 HMA is a remedial provision aimed at alleviating hardship, not punishing either spouse. Even if a spouse remarries, the obligation to maintain the former partner and child continues unless modified under the law.
Citing Rakhi Sadhukhan, the Bench observed that in that case, the Supreme Court awarded ₹50,000 per month to a wife whose husband earned ₹1.64 lakh monthly. Here, the husband’s income was comparable, but the wife also had the additional burden of raising a 13-year-old son. Thus, a higher combined alimony was justified.
Determination of Alimony
Balancing income, standard of living, and responsibilities, the Court fixed:
- ₹35,000 per month to Sushma Dey (wife), and
- ₹25,000 per month for the son’s education and upkeep.
The total of ₹60,000 per month was ordered to be paid by the 10th of every month directly into the wife’s bank account. The amount is to increase by 5% every two years to offset inflation.
If payment is defaulted, the wife may inform the husband’s employer (State Bank of India) to deduct and remit the amount directly from his salary. This innovative enforcement mechanism ensures continuity of support.
The husband’s visitation rights, already determined by the Family Court (second Saturday and last Sunday of each month), were reaffirmed.
Observations on Remarriage
A striking feature of the judgment is the Court’s approach to remarriage. It acknowledged that Manoj’s second marriage—performed during the pendency of divorce proceedings—effectively extinguished any chance of restitution of conjugal rights but did not exonerate him from liability toward his first wife and child. On the contrary, it strengthened the case for awarding substantial alimony, given his voluntary breach of marital obligations.
The Court noted that although Section 25(3) HMA allows rescission of alimony if a wife remarries or is unchaste, the law does not provide reciprocal immunity to a husband who remarries without obtaining a divorce. Thus, remarriage “comes with a price tag” in terms of continuing financial responsibility.
Directions Issued
- Marriage Dissolved: The impugned Family Court order dated 22.02.2023 and decree dated 28.02.2023 were set aside; the marriage was dissolved.
- Alimony: ₹60,000 per month payable (₹35,000 to wife + ₹25,000 to son) with 5% enhancement every two years.
- Payment Mode: Credit to wife’s bank account by 10th of each month; default authorises direct salary deduction by SBI.
- Duration: ₹25,000 for the son continues until completion of his education or higher education.
- Visitation: Husband is entitled to meet the child twice a month (second Saturday and last Sunday).
- Right to Inheritance: The son’s property rights remain unaffected.
Conclusion
Jharkhand High Court’s decision in Manoj Kumar v. Sushma Dey is a lucid example of the judiciary’s commitment to equitable justice in matrimonial disputes. The Court balanced compassion with accountability—recognising that the collapse of a marriage should not translate into economic ruin for the dependent spouse or child.
By directing ₹60,000 per month with automatic biennial escalation, the Bench ensured a realistic standard of living for the wife and son, comparable to what they would have enjoyed in the matrimonial home. At the same time, by preserving visitation rights and the child’s inheritance, the Court fostered a humane and legally coherent outcome.
In essence, the judgment conveys a powerful message:
- Remarriage may bring personal closure, but it does not erase prior legal obligations.
- Financial responsibility continues to flow from marital bonds until lawfully severed—and the cost of neglecting it can indeed come with a price tag.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams