Case Background
The dispute arose from a matrimonial case between a husband and wife whose marriage was solemnized on 3 February 2012. The wife filed a suit for divorce, registered as Matrimonial Case No. 161 of 2016, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara.
The Family Court granted a decree of divorce in favour of the wife and dissolved the marriage. Along with the divorce, the Family Court directed the husband to pay one-time permanent alimony of Rs 20,00,000 to the wife and Rs 5,00,000 to the son, totalling Rs 25,00,000 in favour of the wife.
The husband did not challenge the divorce decree itself. His grievance before the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 991 of 2017 was confined only to the direction for payment of permanent alimony. He claimed that the Family Court’s order on alimony was unjust and excessive.
After admission of the appeal, the High Court directed both parties to file up-to-date affidavits of assets and liabilities. The Court made several attempts to amicably settle the matter by fixing a mutually acceptable amount of permanent alimony, but the parties failed to reach agreement. The appeal was therefore heard on merits only on the question of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench, speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, first set out Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which deals with permanent alimony and maintenance. The provision allows the Court, at the time of passing a decree or later, to grant a gross sum or periodic payment to a spouse for maintenance and support, having regard to the income and property of both parties, their conduct, and other circumstances of the case. It also allows later modification or cancellation if circumstances change, or if the spouse in whose favour the order is made remarries or is found unchaste (in case of wife) or guilty of sexual misconduct (in case of husband).
The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Nishi Kant Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh v. Sunita Devi (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 147 of 2017, decided on 24 July 2025). There, the Court had held that:
- Quantum of maintenance depends on income of both parties, conduct during marriage, social and financial status, personal expenses, dependents, and quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the marriage.
- Permanent alimony should be fixed after assessing the social and financial status of both parties and their liabilities, in line with the Supreme Court decisions in Rajnesh v. Neha, Aditi @ Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma, and Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain.
- Section 25 permits a spouse to seek permanent alimony even after the decree of divorce; the Court does not become functus officio on passing the decree.
Armed with this legal framework, the Bench examined the affidavits and supplementary affidavits of assets and liabilities filed by both sides.
Husband’s case before the High Court
The husband’s counsel argued that after matrimonial discord started, the wife’s maternal uncle lodged a complaint in the husband’s office alleging cruelty and other misconduct. According to the husband, this led to termination of his service, forcing him to leave India and move to Dubai.
He claimed that he is presently working in Dubai as a private Chartered Accountant, earning approximately Rs 1,35,000 to Rs 1,50,000 per month. He further stated that, after the divorce decree, he remarried on 11 November 2020. A child was born from this second marriage on 21 July 2021, described as a “special child,” for whose medical treatment he incurs huge expenses.
The husband also said he has to maintain his old and ailing parents. He alleged that due to what he described as “malice intervention” by his ex-wife in his professional life, he was unable to work regularly and his income had dropped to Rs 44,000 per month in the financial year 2014–2015 and to Rs 12,500 per month in 2015–2016.
On the other hand, he portrayed the wife as financially strong. He claimed that she had a steady flow of income, that her parents are rich businessmen in Ara, and that the son of the parties lives with his grandparents. He relied on her own statement that she works with a non-government organization and earns Rs 60,000 to Rs 80,000 per month.
He further alleged that the wife:
- Maintains multiple bank accounts in HDFC Bank, State Bank of India and Andhra Bank.
- Holds considerable fixed deposits and other funds in undisclosed accounts linked to her mobile number.
- Has a house in Panchkula near Chandigarh where she lives independently.
- Works as a tarot card reader and healer for international and domestic clients.
- Is an author of a book titled “Victim-hood to Victory-hood”.
- Is a social media influencer and brand promoter.
- Has professional links with the film industry and earns money from voice-dubbing assignments for international films.
On this basis, he argued that a wife with such independent income and financial backing is not entitled to permanent alimony.
Precedents cited by the husband
The husband relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3801. In that case, the Supreme Court noted that where a marriage lasted for only a short duration of one year, alimony must be moderated, and that the wife’s own earning capacity and financial background must be assessed, as permanent alimony is not meant to create a “windfall” for one spouse.
He also cited the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6525. The Patna High Court quoted paragraphs 81, 82, 85, and 87 of that judgment, emphasising that:
- Section 25 is equitable and aims to prevent a spouse without independent means from becoming destitute after divorce.
- Relief is not automatic and depends on proof of genuine financial necessity.
- Judicial discretion should not grant alimony where the applicant is financially self-sufficient and independent.
- Permanent alimony is a measure of social justice, not a tool for enrichment or levelling the finances of two capable individuals.
Wife’s case and evidence
The wife’s counsel countered that she had been essentially a housewife. Due to circumstances, she later began working in private organizations involved in upliftment of poor and downtrodden people, and from this work she now earns Rs 60,000 to Rs 80,000 per month.
She started earning only from 2021. To support her income claim, she produced her income tax return. For assessment year 2024–2025, the return showed her total income as Rs 9,86,160 per annum, which works out to around Rs 80,000 per month. The High Court accepted this figure as the current income.
The wife also detailed the expenditure on the parties’ minor son, now about 13 years old. He was admitted at the age of four in Mount Litera Zee School at Ara. The figures placed on record and supported by documents included:
- Admission fee: Rs 50,000 (at the time of admission).
- Annual enrollment fee: Rs 12,350.
- Tuition fee: Rs 4,200 per month, i.e. Rs 50,400 per year.
- Private tuition: about Rs 20,000 per month.
- Games, sports, summer camp/vacation, entertainment, pocket money etc.: about Rs 8,000 per month.
- Transport: Rs 1,900 per month, i.e. Rs 22,800 per year.
According to the wife, much of this is borne by her with support from her parents, and the amount will naturally increase as the child grows.
The wife’s counsel further pointed out that in Criminal Revision No. 734 of 2021, one of the present judges, sitting in revisional jurisdiction, had affirmed an order under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, directing the husband to pay monthly monetary allowance of Rs 25,000 (Rs 15,000 for the wife and Rs 10,000 for the child). As on the date of hearing, Rs 13,60,000 was due under that order, but the husband, even after strong persuasion and strict orders, had paid only Rs 5,000.
Regarding the husband’s claimed income in Dubai, the wife’s counsel stressed that he had not produced any documentary proof of his earnings. He merely stated that he earns Rs 1,35,000 to Rs 1,50,000 per month as a freelance Chartered Accountant. The counsel argued that compensation and professional fees in Dubai are generally higher than in India, and the husband was suppressing his true income.
Court’s evaluation of income and needs
The Court observed that every couple’s financial position and circumstances are different, and that fixation of maintenance is largely left to judicial discretion. However, it listed key factors that affect maintenance under Section 25:
- Income and property of the parties.
- Capacity to earn income.
- Custody of children.
- Dependents on each spouse.
- Status of the parties.
- Conduct of the parties.
- Other circumstances mentioned in Section 25.
The Court agreed with the Delhi High Court’s view in Rita Raj that Section 25 is meant to secure financial justice so that a spouse without independent means is not left destitute, and that relief is not automatic but based on genuine financial need and equitable considerations.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court:
- Accepted the wife’s income at Rs 80,000 per month, on the basis of the 2024–2025 income tax return.
- Noted that custody of the minor son is with the wife, though the child is staying with his grandparents at Ara.
- Found from the documents that Rs 30,000 to Rs 35,000 per month is being spent on the son’s education and related expenses.
- Calculated that after deducting this amount, around Rs 45,000 per month remains for the wife’s own maintenance.
The Court also noted that the wife lives at Panchkula near Chandigarh and is the ex-wife of a Chartered Accountant who earlier earned handsome money in India and is now working in Dubai. However, the husband had filed no documentary proof of his present income, despite claiming it to be only Rs 1,50,000 per month.
Use of the “one-third income” benchmark
The Bench reiterated that it is now well settled that a wife is generally entitled to about one-third of the husband’s total income as maintenance. Taking the husband’s own statement of Rs 1,50,000 per month as a basis, one-third would amount to Rs 50,000 per month, or Rs 6,00,000 per year.
The husband stated in a supplementary affidavit dated 20 January 2025 that he was then 42 years old. Thus, in 2026 he would be about 43. If his working life is taken up to 60 years, roughly 17 years remain. On that assumption, permanent alimony, calculated at Rs 6,00,000 per year for 17 years, would come to Rs 1,02,00,000.
In comparison, the Family Court had ordered a one-time permanent alimony of only Rs 25,00,000. The High Court noted that this amount is Rs 77,00,000 less than what the wife could have claimed on a strict calculation.
Although the Family Court had not recorded detailed reasons for fixing Rs 25,00,000, the High Court inferred that the lower court had kept in mind that the wife had her own independent income and thus moderated the amount.
Final conclusion of the Patna High Court
Considering the affidavits, documents on record, and the legal principles from Section 25 and the cited judgments, the Court held that the amount of permanent alimony fixed by the Family Court was neither excessive nor unjust, keeping in view the status of the parties and the husband’s earning capacity.
The Bench clearly stated that it could not enhance the amount of permanent alimony, even though its own calculation suggested a much higher figure, because the wife had not filed any cross-appeal seeking enhancement. In the absence of such a challenge by the wife, the High Court’s role was limited to examining whether the Rs 25,00,000 was unreasonable or illegal, which it found it was not.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the husband’s appeal, affirmed the order and decree of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ara in Matrimonial Case No. 161 of 2016, and directed the husband to pay the permanent alimony amount within 90 days from the date of the judgment. If he failed to do so, the wife would be at liberty to take steps for execution of the decree.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment shows that the Patna High Court will closely look at the true earning capacity of both spouses before interfering with a Family Court’s alimony order. A husband cannot avoid a reasonable permanent alimony order simply by claiming financial hardship without supporting documents.
The case also makes clear that even if a divorced wife later starts earning and becomes financially active, she may still receive permanent alimony where:
- The husband’s earning capacity is significantly higher, and
- She bears the continuing responsibility for the child’s upbringing and educational expenses.
At the same time, the Court respected the principle that alimony is not meant to make the wife rich at the husband’s cost. It took into account her independent income while noting that she had heavy expenses for the child.
For separated or divorced spouses in Bihar and elsewhere, this decision highlights:
- The importance of filing truthful and complete affidavits of assets and liabilities.
- That income tax returns, school fee receipts, and other documents carry substantial weight.
- That non-compliance with earlier maintenance orders (like under the Domestic Violence Act) can influence the Court’s view of the husband’s conduct and credibility.
The judgment reinforces that the Patna High Court will not lightly disturb a Family Court’s decision on permanent alimony unless the amount is clearly unjust or contrary to law.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Was the wife, who had started earning and had independent income, still entitled to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
Answer: Yes. Considering her income, the heavy expenses for the minor son, and the husband’s far higher earning capacity as a Chartered Accountant in Dubai, she remained entitled to permanent alimony.
Issue: Was the one-time permanent alimony of Rs 25,00,000 fixed by the Family Court excessive or unjust, warranting interference by the Patna High Court?
Answer: No. When measured against the one-third income benchmark and the husband’s remaining working years, the amount was in fact much lower than what could have been fixed. The High Court therefore affirmed it.
Issue: Could the High Court enhance the amount of permanent alimony in this appeal?
Answer: No. In the absence of any cross-appeal by the wife seeking enhancement, the Court confined itself to examining the husband’s challenge and did not increase the awarded sum.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Nishi Kant Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh v. Sunita Devi, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 147 of 2017 (Patna High Court, decided on 24 July 2025).
- Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
- Aditi @ Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451.
- Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678.
- Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3801.
- Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6525.
Case Details
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 991 of 2017
Case Title: Puneet Agarwal @ Punit Agarwal v. Ankita Agarwal @ Ankita Jain @ Ankita
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha
Citation: 2026 (3) PLJR 361
Advocates:
- For the Appellant (husband): Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Md. Kamran, Advocate.
- For the Respondent (wife): Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Priyesh Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Saharsh Singh, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Miscellaneous appeal challenging order/decree on permanent alimony in a matrimonial (divorce) case.
Court and Bench: High Court of Judicature at Patna, Division Bench.
Date of Judgment: 05 May 2026
Link to Judgment: Full text of Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
