Jharkhand High Court Enhances Monthly Alimony Of Wife & Autistic Child To ₹90K After RTI Reveals Husband's ₹20 Lakh Annual Income
The Jharkhand High Court enhanced the permanent alimony awarded by the family court a woman to Rs. 90,000 p.m.–including Rs. 40,000 for maintenance of her minor son who suffers from autism, rejecting the husband's argument that she was self sufficient observing that she can't do a permanent job in view of her son's condition. In doing so the court also took note of the husband's job...
The Jharkhand High Court enhanced the permanent alimony awarded by the family court a woman to Rs. 90,000 p.m.–including Rs. 40,000 for maintenance of her minor son who suffers from autism, rejecting the husband's argument that she was self sufficient observing that she can't do a permanent job in view of her son's condition.
In doing so the court also took note of the husband's job observing that he earns Rs. 2,31,294 per month while also remarking that autism, which is incurable, requires treatment carrying "huge expenditure on a regular basis".
The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar, whereby it was stated, “For the reasons aforesaid, this Court thought it proper that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- [fifty thousand] per month would be just, fair and reasonable, for sustenance of the appellant wife, who has no other source of income rather has to engage herself in taking care of the son who is suffering from “Autism” and born out of wedlock of respondent-husband and appellant-wife herein.”
“Further, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month would be proper to ensure financial stability of the son, and for livelihood, sustenance, treatment and study. Both the permanent alimony awarded to the appellant-wife and son would be subject to enhancement of 5% on every two years, taking into consideration the inflation etc.,” the bench added.
The above ruling was delivered in a First Appeal arising from the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Principal Judge-II, Ranchi cum Additional Family Court, Ranchi in an Original Suit.
As per the factual matrix of the case, the couple had married in 2010 and had a son born in 2012. According to the wife, from the very beginning of the marriage, the respondent-husband behaved indecently and used to consume alcohol and assault her. He denied her access to money and restricted her from speaking to her family. She further alleged that dowry demands were made by the respondent and his family, including cash, gold ornaments, household appliances, and later a car and Rs. 15 lakhs.
The appellant wife stated that she was subjected to mental harassment, was deserted by the respondent just after the birth of their child, and the respondent cut all communication with her and the child. She also alleged that her in-laws advised her to stay in Bhopal while the respondent earned in Mumbai. The respondent did not take the appellant and child back to his household despite repeated efforts and even refused in the Panchayat held at Bhopal.
The appellant eventually filed a complaint before the National Commission for Women and later filed a suit seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, along with a prayer for permanent alimony. The trial court allowed the decree of divorce and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 12 lakhs as permanent alimony to the appellant and Rs. 8,000 per month as maintenance for the son. The appellant challenged the quantum of alimony before the High Court, asserting that the maintenance amount did not consider the financial status of the respondent or the fact that the son was suffering from autism.
The Court considered the evidence that the respondent-husband is working at JP Morgan in Mumbai and earning a monthly home salary of Rs. 2,31,294.
The Court opined that it is not fit to be accepted and it is not practically possible for a mother to engage herself in a permanent job whose son is suffering from “Autism”, which requires special attention all the time.
Further, the Court pointed out that it was the respondent-wife, who had preferred appeal questioning the quantum of permanent alimony for both the appellant-wife and son, who was suffering from “Autism” on the ground of assessment and determination done by the family court said to be a meager amount.
It stated, “The question of self-sufficiency so far as the appellant-wife is concerned, in the backdrop of the fact that the son is suffering from “Autism”, it is quite impossible for her to do job reason being that being the mother whose son is suffering from “Autism” is to take all around that is 24X7 since the mother can better take care of the son, who is suffering from such nature of ailment. The father has also not disputed aforesaid fact of suffering of his son from “Autism” and nobody can dispute it rather the father has stated that he is keen to take care of his son but merely saying that he is serious to take care of his son is not sufficient rather for taking care the physical presence, either of the mother or father, is required in addition to the monetary support to meet out the medical expenses and special school/training, who is suffering from “Autism” is required.”
The Court also observed that the respondent-husband's claim that the wife was financially independent was not tenable in the facts of this case.
It said, “It also cannot be disputed that “Autism” is an incurable disease rather intensity of the same can be lowered but for that also, huge expenditure, on regular basis, is required by getting better treatment before the doctor having expertise in this filed, consultation with the psychologist/speech therapy/physiotherapy etc. for improvement and in addition thereto, the special schooling which has got specialty and which has got expertise in dealing with such children.”
The Court added, “This Court applying the aforesaid observation and direction of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the facts of the present case, is of the view that herein also, enhancement in permanent alimony of both the appellant-wife and son is required, in view of the fact that the monthly income of the respondent husband is Rs. 2,31,294/- [after deductions of Provident Fund, Professional Tax and Income Tax etc.].”
Thus, the High Court directed the amount to be transferred to the appellant-wife's bank account before the 10th of every month, and in case of discontinuation of alimony, the Court granted her the liberty to approach the respondent's employer for disbursement of the said amount directly in her bank account.
“If in such situation the employer will receive information of non-disbursement of the amount, as directed above, the amount of permanent alimony granted to the appellant-wife to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- [fifty thousand] per month and permanent alimony for the son to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- per month, subject to 5 % enhancement after every two years, from the month of July, 2025, shall directly be transmitted to the account of the appellant-wife,” the High Court said while allowing the appeal.
Case Title: X vs. Y
Case No.: First Appeal No. 141 of 2023