IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RSA No.267 of 2016 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Kshirodini @ Khirodini Suna …. Appellant -versus- Dinamani Suna …. Respondent For Appellant - Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocate For Respondent - D.K.Sahu, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :14.05.2026:: Date of Judgment :15.05.2026 A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Wife challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2016 and 04.05.2016 respectively passed in MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013 by the learned Additional District Judge, Padampur in the District of Bargarh on the ground of inadequacy of the amount of permanent alimony passed in her favour praying for enhancement of the same. 2. The Respondent and Appellant in this 2nd appeal being the husband and wife respectively, they were the Petitioner and Respondent before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide Civil Suit (MAT) No.36 of 2010 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Respondent and Appellant before the learned 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013. 3. The factual backgrounds of this 2nd appeal, which prompted the Appellant/Wife for filing the same is that, the Respondent/Husband being the Petitioner filed the suit vide Civil Suit (MAT) No.36 of 2010 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against his wife (Appellant in this 2nd appeal) arraying her as Respondent praying for passing a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage with his wife taking several grounds. To which, his wife contested denying the allegations alleged by the Petitoner (husband) against her. 4. After taking the materials and evidence available in the record into account, the learned Trial Court decreed the said suit of the Petitioner/Husband vide Civil Suit (MAT) No.36 of 2010 on contest against his wife and dissolved the marriage of the Petitioner and Respondent. To which, the wife challenged by preferring an appeal vide MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013 before the learned 1st Appellate Court. 5. After hearing from both the sides, the learned 1st Appellate Court disposed of that MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013 on contest as per its judgment and decree dated 19.04.2016 and 04.05.2016 respectively confirming the decree of divorce passed by the learned Trial Court directing the Husband to pay Rs.7.5 Lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) as lump sum to the Wife towards her permanent/one time alimony and also directed the Husband to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) per month for the maintenance of the minor son. 6. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013, the wife challenged the same preferring this 2nd appeal being the Appellant against her Husband arraying her Husband as Respondent praying for modification of the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in order to enhance the awarded permanent alimony in her favour from Rs.7.5 Lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) to 15 Lakhs (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only). 7. This 2nd Appeal filed by the Wife (Appellant) against the Husband (Respondent) was admitted on formulation of the following substantial question of law i.e.:- Whether, the 1st Appellate Court confirming the decree of divorce is not right in awarding the permanent lump sum alimony of Rs.7.5 Lakhs, which is on a lower side in view of the evidence on record? 8. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides. 9. As per Order No.36 dated 20.03.2026, the learned counsels of both the sides were directed to clarify the following queries of this Court for the fair adjudication of this 2nd appeal and the said queries are as follows:- (i) Present salary of the Husband/Respondent (Dinamani Suna). (ii) Present remuneration of the Appellant/Wife. (iii) The date of birth of the son of the Appellant and Respondent. On that day i.e. on 20.03.2026, the learned counsels of both the sides submitted the photo copy of the Matriculation Certificate of the son of the Appellant and Respondent showing his date of birth as 02.08.2004 and took time for filing of the documents in support of the above query Nos.1 and 2. 10. In pursuance to the above directions made through Order No.36 dated 20.03.2026, the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted the pay slip of the Respondent/Husband for the Month of February, 2026, which was issued on dated 23.03.2026 by the Block Education Officer, Paikamal and the monthly honorarium of the Appellant/Wife, which was issued by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Padampur on dated 23.03.2026. 11. As per the submitted pay slip of the Respondent/Husband, he is serving as a Government Teacher under the Block Education Officer, Paikamal and his monthly gross salary is Rs.1,00,764/- (One lakh seven hundred sixty four only) and after deduction of P.Tax, LIC Premium, TPF, EV advance and festival advance, in total Rs.24712/-, (Twenty four thousand seven hundred twelve only) his monthly home take salary is Rs.76,052/- (Seventy six thousand fifty two only). 12. Except the P.F., other deductions from the salary of the Respondent/Husband are not statutory deductions. Because, the deduction towards LIC Premium is not a statutory deduction, but, the same is a deferred payment, which will be paid to the Respondent/Husband later. The deduction i.e. TPF, EV advance and festival advance are the voluntary deductions of the Respondent/Husband from his monthly salary. 13. The Appellant/Wife is working as an Anganwadi Worker at Loharpali under the C.D.P.O, Padampur and her monthly honorarium is Rs.10,000/- (Rupess ten thousand only) as per the submitted certificate. 14. It is the settled propositions of law that, While granting permanent alimony, no arithmetical formula can be adopted, as there cannot be mathematical exactitudes. It shall depend upon the status of the Parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the Husband and other obligations. Duty of the Court is to see that, the wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in penury. Living need not be luxurious, but, simultaneously she should not be left to live in discomfort. Court has to act with pragmatic sensibility, so that, the wife does not meet with any kind of manmade misfortune. Grant of permanent alimony to wife is the discretion of the Court, likewise the Court has the discretion to increase the maintenance based on substantial change in circumstances. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court and Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions:- (I) In a case between Rakesh Malhotra Vs. Krishna Malhotra reported in 2021 (1) Crimes 48 (S.C.) (D.B) that, Since basic order was passed by the concerned Court under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by very nature, order of modification/variation can also be passed by the concerned Court exercising the power under Section 25(2) or 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (II) In a case between Sasmita Moharana Vs. Susen Kumar Maharana reported in 2024 (4) CCC 10 (Orissa) (D.B) that, The grant of permanent alimony to wife as per Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, is the discretion of the Court. (III) In a case between Nirmal Karnakar Vs. Parbati @ Parbati Karnakar reported in 2025 (1) CCC 395 (Orissa) (D.B) that, Court has discretion to increase maintenance based on substantial change in circumstances applying the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (IV) In a case between Parvin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain reported in 2024 (4) CCC 366 (SC) (D.B) that, Amount of permanent alimony should not penalize husband, but, should be made with aim of ensuring decent standard of living for wife. (V) In a case between Kiran Jyot Maini Vs. Anish Pramod Patel reported in 2024 (3) CCC 100 (S.C.) (D.B) that, In order to provide one time permanent alimony,the Status of parties is a significant factor, encompassing their social standing, lifestyle and financial background. Financial capacity of husband is a critical factor in determining permanent alimony. (VI) In a case between Ranjan Kumar Routray Vs. (Smt.) Madhumita Mohanty @ Routray reported in 2020 (II) OLR 940 (D.B) that, While granting permanent alimony, the Court is required to take note of the fact that, the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as, she can live her status and the mode of life, she was used to live, when, she lived with her husband. No arithmetical formula can be adopted as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude, while granting permanent alimony. (VII) In a case between Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy reported in 2017 (1) CLR (S.C.) 1099 (D.B) that, Moulding the claim for maintenance should be passed on various factors. 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the wife. (VIII) In a case between Dr.Kulbhusan Kumar Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and another reported in 1970 (3) SCC 129 that, 25 per cent of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the Respondent/Wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must befitting to the status of the parties and capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. (IX) In a case between Umakanta Barik Vs. Rukmini Barik reported in 2017 (1) OLR 784 (D.B) that, While granting permanent alimony, no arithmetical formula can be adopted, as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the Parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the Husband and other obligations. Duty of the Court to see that, the wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in penury. Living need not be luxurious, but, simultaneously she should not be left to live in discomfort. Court has to act with pragmatic sensibility, so that, the wife does not meet with any kind of man-made misfortune. (X) In a case between Jyoti Sankar Panda and another Vs. Jyotirmayee Dash and another reported in 2022 (3) CCC 42 (Orissa) that, The quantum of permanent alimony should be fixed taking into consideration to the status of the parties. (Para No.15) In this case, the appellant is earning a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- per month as salary. Out of which, approximately 33 Per cent is deducting towards income tax, which comes to around Rs.83,000/-.So, his home take salary (including his contribution to GPF, Health Insurance Scheme Premium etc) comes to around Rs.1,60,000/-. Therefore the wife is entitled for 1/4thof the same, which comes to around Rs.40,000/- per month. Respondent/wife is also earning sum of Rs15,000/- per month approximately. So, from the monthly salary of the Husband, the Respondent/Wife is entitled to Rs.40,000/-(-)Rs.15,000/- i.e. Rs.25,000/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs,3,00,000/-. Since parties were 35 to 40 years old at the time filing of civil proceeding, multiplier 16 should be applied in this case. Therefore, total amount comes to Rs.48,000,000/-. It will just and proper to enhance the permanent alimony of the wife from Rs.40,000,00/- to Rs.48,000,00/-. 15. As per the dictums and guidelines formulated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the quantum of permanent alimony for the wife like the Appellant in this 2nd appeal should be fixed taking into consideration the status of the Parties. 16. When, the suit vide Civil Suit (MAT) No.36 of 2010 has been continuing between the Parties since the year 2010, then, it is felt that, the quantum of permanent alimony granted in favour of the wife by the learned 1st Appellate Court is at a lower side. Therefore, the quantum of permanent alimony for the Wife (appellant) is to be fixed taking into consideration to the status of the Parties. For which, the Appellant/Wife is to be entitled to the appropriate permanent alimony as per the calculations given below on the basis of the guidelines fixed in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions:- Calculation for the entitled permanent alimony of the Appellant/Wife As per the undisputed Pay Slip (indicated in the Para No.11 of this judgment), the monthly home take salary of the Respondent/Husband is Rs.1,00,764/- (One Lakh Seven Hundred Sixty-Four Rupees Only), because, at present, there is no deduction towards Professional Tax and also there is no payment towards income tax in respect of the annual income from salary up to 12 Lakhs. Therefore, the Appellant (wife) is entitled for the 1/4th of Rs.1,00,764/- (One Lakh Seven Hundred Sixty-Four Rupees Only), which is comes to around Rs.25,191/- (Twenty-five thousand, one hundred ninety-one Rupees) per month. The monthly honorarium of the wife is Rs.10,000/- as an Anganwadi Worker. So, the monthly entitled maintenance of the Appellant (wife) is Rs.25,191(-)Rs.10,000=Rs.15,191/- per month and per annum is Rs.15,191/- X 12=Rs.1,82,292/-. Since, the present age of the Husband and Wife is 53 years and 42 years respectively, for which, the multiplier i.e. 13 is applicable for computation/calculation of permanent alimony for the wife. Therefore, the total amount of permanent alimony for the wife comes to Rs.1,82,292/- X 13=Rs.23,69,796/- (Twenty-three lakh sixty- nine thousand seven hundred ninety-six rupees only). 17. Though, at the time of filing of the 2nd appeal vide R.S.A. No.267 of 2016, the wife had prayed for the enhancement of the awarded permanent alimony in her favour by the learned 1st Appellate Court from Rs.7.5 Lakhs (Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand rupees only) to Rs.15 Lakhs (Fifteen Lakh rupees only), but, in the meantime, more than 9 years have already been passed. When as per law, the quantum of permanent alimony should be fixed taking consideration to the status of the Parties on the basis of their income and when, the power of the Court is not limited to grant the exact amount towards permanent alimony claimed by the wife, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the decisions indicated in Para No.14 of this judgment, though, the wife has claimed for enhancement of the awarded permanent alimony in her favour from Rs.7.5 Lakhs to Rs.15 Lakhs, but, as per the calculations made above, according to law, she (wife) is entitled to get permanent alimony of Rs.23,69,796/-, (Twenty-three lakh sixty-nine thousand seven hundred ninety-six rupees only), which is rounded as Rs.23 Lakhs (Twenty-three Lakh rupees only) . Therefore, as per the discussions and observations made above, it is just and proper to enhance the permanent alimony awarded in favour of the Appellant/Wife by the learned 1st Appellate Court in MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013 from Rs.7.5 Lakhs (Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand rupees only) to Rs.23 Lakhs (Twenty-three Lakh rupees only). As such, this 2nd Appeal filed by the Appellant/Wife has merit. The same is to be allowed. 18. In result, the 2ndappeal filed by the Appellant (wife) is allowed on merit for enhancement of permanent alimony awarded by the learned 1st Appellate Court in MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013 in favour of the Appellant (wife) through modification of the judgment relating to the quantum of permanent alimony passed in the 1st Appeal vide MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013 by the learned 1st Appellate Court. The permanent alimony awarded in favour of the Appellant/Wife by the learned 1st Appellate Court in MAT Appeal No.01/98 of 2012/2013 is enhanced from 7.5 Lakhs (Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand rupees only) to 23 Lakhs (Twenty-three Lakh rupees only). The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the Respondent/Husband to the Appellant/Wife towards her permanent alimony within three months from today after deducting the amounts, if any, already paid by the Respondent/Husband to the Appellant/Wife for the same. (A.C. Behera), Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack 15th of May 2026/ Binayak Sahoo// Junior Stenographer