In a landmark judgment, the Jharkhand High Court granted divorce to an SBI manager and ordered him to pay Rs 60,000 monthly alimony to his first wife and son after discovering his second marriage during pending proceedings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
RANCHI: In a significant ruling on October 14, 2025, the Jharkhand High Court dissolved the marriage of a State Bank of India (SBI) Deputy Manager and his wife, overturning a Family Court judgment that had earlier rejected his plea for divorce.
The division bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar directed the husband to pay a total of ₹60,000 per month as permanent alimony, ₹35,000 to his wife and ₹25,000 for the upkeep and education of their 13-year-old son.
Background of the Case
The couple married on February 14, 2011, and had a son on February 19, 2012. The husband alleged that his wife was “hot-tempered and quarrelsome” and that she left the matrimonial home in March 2014 without any valid reason.
Their relationship soon turned bitter, leading to multiple legal disputes:
- The husband obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in 2017, but the wife did not return.
- The wife filed a maintenance case (₹7,000/month awarded) and criminal cases under Section 498A IPC against him and his family.
In February 2023, the Family Court, Bokaro, dismissed the husband’s divorce petition filed under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Aggrieved, he appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, leading to the present High Court verdict.
Arguments Before the High Court
Wife’s Submission:
The respondent-wife revealed that the husband had remarried in 2019 while the divorce case was still pending.
She stated there was “no possibility of restitution of conjugal rights” and that she was ready for divorce, but sought adequate permanent alimony.
Her counsel argued that:
- She had lost her contractual job in April 2025 and was financially dependent on her aged father.
- The husband, a Deputy Manager at SBI, earned around ₹1.5 lakh per month but was hiding his true income by citing heavy loan deductions used to create future assets.
- She bore significant educational expenses for their son.
Husband’s Argument:
The appellant contended that his take-home salary was only ₹65,536 and that he was already burdened by loans.
He claimed that since his wife was previously employed, she was not entitled to further maintenance, though he expressed willingness to pay for his son’s education.
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted that both parties consented to the dissolution of marriage, making the key issue the quantum of alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The bench criticized the husband for not fully disclosing his assets, drawing an adverse inference against him. His September 2025 salary slip revealed a gross monthly income of ₹1,49,753.
The judges relied heavily on Supreme Court precedents, including:
- Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.
- Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan
In Rakhi Sadhukhan, the Supreme Court had awarded ₹50,000 monthly alimony where the husband earned ₹1.64 lakh per month. The High Court observed that the present case warranted a higher amount, since the wife was now unemployed and caring for a minor child.
Final Directions:
The bench allowed the appeal and passed the following orders:
- Divorce Granted: The Family Court’s judgment dated February 22, 2023, was quashed.
- Permanent Alimony:
- ₹35,000/month to the wife
- ₹25,000/month for the son (until completion of his education)
- Inflation Clause: The amount will increase by 5% every two years.
- Mode of Payment: The amount must be paid by the 10th of each month.
- If the husband defaults, the wife can apply to the employer (SBI) to have the amount directly deducted from his salary.
- Visitation Rights: The father may meet his son every second Saturday and the last Sunday of the month.
- Inheritance Rights: The son’s right to ancestral property remains unaffected.
Appearance:
For the Appellant: Advocates Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Praveen Kumar Pandey
For the Respondent: Advocates Oishi, Ashish Choudhary
Case Title:
Manoj Kumar Versus Sushma Dey
F.A. No.55 of 2023
READ ORDER