Taxscan: Jharkhand: Monday, June 23, 2025.
The bench directed the husband to pay Rs. Rs. 50,000 to wife and Rs. 40,000 to autistic son with a biennial hike, noting the husband’s consistent Rs. 1.5 lakh monthly earnings
The Jharkhand High Court has
granted Rs. 90,000 as monthly alimony after an RTI disclosure revealed that the
husband earns an annual income of Rs. 21 lakhs.
In this case, the appellant, Susmita Prasad, who was the wife of Raju Prasad, had appealed before the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, against the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge-II, Ranchi Cum Additional Family Court, Ranchi, in which, while allowing the dissolution of marriage, has directed the respondent-husband to pay permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 12 lacs to the appellant-wife. The alimony order also stated that Rs. 8,000 monthly maintenance for the son, Ishan Aryan Prasad, will remain unaffected.
The appellant-wife, who was aggrieved with the quantum of permanent alimony, approached the High Court for relief.
The appellant argued that the Rs 12 lakh alimony was inadequate, as the Family Court ignored the husband's income and the son's lifelong autism-related needs, which require continuous care and medical support.
The wife’s counsel submitted that the cost of monthly maintenance of the child is about Rs. 53,000/- per month, which includes occupational training, speech therapy, Deepshikha School Fee, medicine per month, special diet including treatment, personal tuition, etc.
The appellant's counsel argued that the Family Court set a low alimony assuming the husband was unemployed. But recent records show that he is currently employed at JP Morgan with a salary of Rs. 2.31 lakhs per month and owns property in Bhopal, Patna, and Mumbai.
The husband’s counsel, on the other hand, argued that there was no error in the impugned order and that the order was passed based on cogent evidence.
The High Court held that the alimony must be increased due to the husband’s monthly income of Rs. 2.3 lakhs after deductions of Provident Fund, Professional Tax, Income Tax, etc.
The bench, by going through the on RTI-based income details, noted that in the financial year 2021-22 and 2022-23, the respondent husband has a net annual income of Rs. 18.51 lacs and 21.00 lacs respectively, which means he earned more than 1.5 lakhs per year.
The High Court, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar, allowed the appellant’s appeal.
The bench directed the husband to pay Rs. Rs. 50,000 to wife and Rs. 40,000 to autistic son with a biennial hike, noting the husband’s consistent Rs. 1.5 lakh monthly earnings
In this case, the appellant, Susmita Prasad, who was the wife of Raju Prasad, had appealed before the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, against the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge-II, Ranchi Cum Additional Family Court, Ranchi, in which, while allowing the dissolution of marriage, has directed the respondent-husband to pay permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 12 lacs to the appellant-wife. The alimony order also stated that Rs. 8,000 monthly maintenance for the son, Ishan Aryan Prasad, will remain unaffected.
The appellant-wife, who was aggrieved with the quantum of permanent alimony, approached the High Court for relief.
The appellant argued that the Rs 12 lakh alimony was inadequate, as the Family Court ignored the husband's income and the son's lifelong autism-related needs, which require continuous care and medical support.
The wife’s counsel submitted that the cost of monthly maintenance of the child is about Rs. 53,000/- per month, which includes occupational training, speech therapy, Deepshikha School Fee, medicine per month, special diet including treatment, personal tuition, etc.
The appellant's counsel argued that the Family Court set a low alimony assuming the husband was unemployed. But recent records show that he is currently employed at JP Morgan with a salary of Rs. 2.31 lakhs per month and owns property in Bhopal, Patna, and Mumbai.
The husband’s counsel, on the other hand, argued that there was no error in the impugned order and that the order was passed based on cogent evidence.
The High Court held that the alimony must be increased due to the husband’s monthly income of Rs. 2.3 lakhs after deductions of Provident Fund, Professional Tax, Income Tax, etc.
The bench, by going through the on RTI-based income details, noted that in the financial year 2021-22 and 2022-23, the respondent husband has a net annual income of Rs. 18.51 lacs and 21.00 lacs respectively, which means he earned more than 1.5 lakhs per year.
The High Court, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar, allowed the appellant’s appeal.
.JPG)
.JPG)
