RAKHI SADHUKHANversusRAJA SADHUKHAN

                  [2025] 5 S.C.R. 782 : 2025 INSC 789

                              Rakhi Sadhukhan
                                     v.
                              Raja Sadhukhan
                       (Civil Appeal No. 10209 of 2024)
                                  29 May 2025
               [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the quantum of permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per
       month, subject to a 5% increase every three years, fixed by the
       High Court ought to be enhanced.

                                   Headnotes†
       Permanent alimony – Quantum of – Enhancement of:
       Held: Respondent-husband’s income, financial disclosures and past
       earnings establish that he can pay a higher amount – Appellant-wife
       who has remained unmarried and is living independently is entitled
       to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living
       she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her
       future – Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued
       reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support
       necessitate a reassessment of the amount – Permanent alimony
       enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase every
       two years – Impugned order modified to that extent. [Paras 7-9]

                                   List of Acts
       Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

                                List of Keywords
       Quantum of permanent alimony; Enhancement of permanent
       alimony; Husband in a position to pay a higher amount; Wife
       remained unmarried, living independently; Entitled to a level of
       maintenance; Standard of living enjoyed during the marriage;
       Inflationary cost of living; Continued reliance on maintenance;
       Financial stability for the wife; Permanent alimony enhanced;
       Reassessment of Permanent alimony; Divorce granted on the
       ground of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       783

                    Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan


                           Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10209
     of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 25.06.2019 of the High Court
     at Calcutta in FA No. 92 of 2019
     With
     Contempt Petition (C) No. 857 of 2024 In Civil Appeal No. 10209
     of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Ashutosh Dubey, Mrs. Rajshri Dubey, Abhishek Chauhan, Amit P
     Shahi, Anjan Datta, Rahul Sethi, Gaurav Yadav, Sumant A Khan,
     Manish Dhingra, Rajendra Anbhule, Manish Bhandari, Mrs. Sona
     Khan, Amit Kumar, Ms. Trikha Chanda, Ms. Chanda Trikha.
     Advs. for the Respondent:
     Rashid N. Azam, Nirmal Singh Shekhawat, Rahul Yadav, Rinny
     Abraham, Rinny Yadav.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Vikram Nath, J.

1.   The present appeal arises out of the order dated 25.06.2019 passed
     by the High Court of Calcutta in FA No. 92 of 2019 (FAT No. 122 of
     2015), whereby the Division Bench allowed the respondent-husband’s
     appeal and granted a decree of divorce, awarding permanent alimony
     of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, with an increase of
     5% every three years.
2.   The facts relevant to the present appeal are as follows:
     2.1 The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on
         18.06.1997.
     2.2 A son was born to the them on 05.08.1998.
     2.3 In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit
         No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act,
784                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            1954 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty
            allegedly inflicted by the appellant-wife.
       2.4 Subsequently, the appellant-wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008
           in the same suit under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
           1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son.
       2.5 The Trial Court, by order dated 14.01.2010, awarded interim
           maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and
           Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
       2.6 The appellant-wife then instituted Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010
           under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
           The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the
           respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per
           month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the
           minor son, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs.
       2.7 The Trial Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the
           matrimonial suit, finding that the respondent-husband had failed
           to prove cruelty. Aggrieved, the respondent filed FAT No. 122
           of 2015 before the High Court of Calcutta.
       2.8 During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-wife filed
           CAN No. 4505 of 2025 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.
           30,000/- for herself and Rs. 20,000/- for the son, along with
           Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses.
       2.9 The High Court, by order dated 14.05.2015, directed the
           respondent-husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-
           per month.
       2.10 Subsequently, by order dated 14.07.2016, the High Court noted
            that the respondent-husband was drawing a net monthly salary
            of Rs. 69,000/- and enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs.
            20,000/- per month.
       2.11 Finally, the High Court, by the impugned order dated 25.06.2019,
            allowed the respondent’s appeal, granted a decree of divorce
            on the ground of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown
            of marriage, and directed the respondent-husband to:
            (i)   redeem the mortgage on the flat where the appellant-wife
                  was residing and transfer the title deed to her name by
                  31.08.2019;
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         785

                    Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan


           (ii)   allow the appellant-wife and their son to continue residing
                  in the said flat; and
           (iii) continue to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000/- per
                 month to the appellant-wife, subject to a 5% increase
                 every three years.
             Additionally, the High Court directed payment of educational
             expenses for the son’s university education and Rs. 5,000/-
             per month for private tuition. Aggrieved by the quantum of
             alimony awarded, the appellant-wife is before this Court. We
             have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3.   This Court, vide order dated 20.02.2023, issued notice confined to
     the question of enhancement of permanent alimony awarded to the
     appellant-wife.
4.   By interim order dated 07.11.2023, this Court, noting the absence of
     representation on behalf of the respondent-husband despite proof
     of service, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs. 75,000/- with
     effect from 01.11.2023. The respondent-husband subsequently
     entered appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of
     the said interim order.
5.   The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- per
     month, which the High Court made final, was originally awarded as
     interim maintenance. She submits that the respondent-husband has
     a monthly income of approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- and the quantum
     of alimony awarded is not commensurate with the standard of living
     maintained by the parties during the marriage.
6.   In response, the respondent-husband submits that his current net
     monthly income is Rs. 1,64,039/-, earned from his employment at the
     Institute of Hotel Management, Taratala, Kolkata. He has placed on
     record salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for the
     year 2023–2024. It is further stated that he was earlier employed with
     the Taj Hotel, drawing a gross annual salary of Rs. 21,92,525/-. He
     also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs. 1,72,088/-,
     and that he has remarried, has a dependent family, and aged parents.
     The respondent-husband contends that their son, now 26 years of
     age, is no longer financially dependent.
7.   Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are
     of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High
786                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       Court requires revision. The respondent-husband’s income, financial
       disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay
       a higher amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried
       and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance
       that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the
       marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the
       inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance
       as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment
       of the amount.
8.     In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would
       be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the
       appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of
       5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not
       inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However,
       it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with
       educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son’s
       right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral
       or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.
9.     In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of
       the High Court is modified to the extent that the permanent alimony
       payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month, subject
       to a 5% increase every two years, as noted above.
10. The contempt petition to be disposed of accordingly.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Matters disposed of.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey