2026:JHHC:19782-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 189 of 2025 ------- Kumari Puja, aged about 30 years, wife of Avinash Kumar Pandey, daughter of Ashok Kumar Pandey, resident of Flat No.M/1 Tube Colony, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum … … Appellant/Appellant Versus Avinash Kumar Pandey, aged about 33 years, son of Sanjay Kumar Pandey, resident of Qr. No.2 N-4, Gaghra Road, Old Baridih, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum … … Respondent/ Opposite Party With F.A. No. 328 of 2023 ------- Avinash Kumar Pandey, aged about 33 years, son of Sanjay Kumar Pandey, resident of Qr. No.2N-4, Gaghra Road, Old Baridih, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum … … Respondent/ Appellant Versus Kumari Puja, aged about 30 years, wife of Avinash Kumar Pandey, daughter of Ashok Kumar Pandey, resident of Flat No.M/1 Tube Colony, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand … … Petitioner/Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ------- In F.A. No.189 of 2025 For the Appellant : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate Ms. Harshikha Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Ashwini Priya, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate In F.A. No.328 of 2023 For the Appellant : Ms. Ashwini Priya, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate Ms. Harshikha Kumari, Advocate ---------------------------- 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 2 CAV on 14/05/2026 Pronounced on 30/06/2026 F.A. No.189 of 2025 Prayer 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assailing the Judgment dated 26.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-I, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 475 of 2021. By the said judgment, the marriage between the parties stood dissolved, and the respondent-husband was directed to pay a sum of ₹8,00,000/- towards adjustment of cash and other properties received by him at the time of marriage. The appellant-wife, being dissatisfied with the quantum so awarded, has preferred the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the said amount. F.A. No.328 of 2023 Prayer 2. The instant appeal preferred by the appellant-husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the Judgment dated 26.05.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court-I, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Original Suit No.475 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the learned Family Judge has been dissolve the marriage vide decree of divorce and the appellant-husband was directed to pay sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, in lieu of cash and other property received by him in the marriage. The appellant/husband is aggrieved to the extent that the appellant was directed to pay sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh), in lieu of cash and other property. 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 3 3. Since both these appeals emanate from a common judgment and order, they are accordingly being disposed of by this common order/judgment. Facts 4. Since both the appeals are arising out of common judgment dated 26.05.2023 and similar facts are there and as such, the facts of the cases are required to be referred herein. 5. The brief facts of the cases as mentioned in impugned order, which required to be enumerated, need to be referred as under: 6. It is the case that the petitioner/plaintiff is the legally married wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was performed on 24.02.2019 according to Hindu rites and customs at parental house of the petitioner. It is further stated that both the parties and their parents have been living at Jamshedpur and all the rites and rituals of the marriage was celebrated. In the said marriage as per the demand of the respondent and his parents, the petitioner's father has given Rs. 10,00,000/- cash to the respondent in presence of the witnesses and the petitioner's parent and their relatives, have given various gift articles of wooden bed alongwith cushions and pillows, almirah, T.V. Set, Air Conditioner, Gold and Silver Ornaments and other domestic articles worth of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the Respondent. After few days of marriage, the respondent and his parents started torturing the petitioner physically and mentally and demanded more amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- and they also put the demand before the Petitioner about transfer of her salary to the joint account of petitioner and her respondent husband and the respondent and his parents pressurized to compel the petitioner's parent to fulfill the said demand. 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 4 7. It has been stated that when the petitioner refused to fulfill the aforesaid demand, they started abusing in filthy languages and threatened with dire consequences to do away with her life. Despite threats with criminal intimidation, the petitioner continued her conjugal life at the matrimonial home having keeping in view in her mind that the respondent and his family members would pay sufficient regard with much influence in future, but the respondent and their family members did not do so and the respondent and his family members continued torturing by not providing sufficient food and other requirements of daily life to the petitioner. 8. It is stated that the respondent/husband and his family members created environment of domestic violence in their house. The respondent and their family members deprived her from right to reside in the house of the respondent. The respondent and his family members have brutally beaten and misbehaved with the petitioner affecting her self-respect and body, the petitioner was wrongfully confined and was restrained, and had to perform her daily routine work in inhuman nature with no comfort bed to sleep at night, creating inhuman behaviour with the petitioner. 9. It is stated that the petitioner was pressurized and compelled to refrain from the company work in which the petitioner is still an employee at Jamshedpur. The respondent refused to establish to physical relation and cohabitation since beginning of the marriage and did not spend more time together under one roof for the happiness of couple. The petitioner was blamed that she had been in the relationship with another person and her associate to torture her mentally. The petitioner and the respondent used to live together, but not as married couple at the place where they used to live in any part of the country. The respondent and the petitioner have been 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 5 living separately for more than two years, on 21.8.2019 the petitioner has finally left the house of the respondent and came to live with her parents. The cause of action arose on 21.8.2019 the petitioner was compelled to leave the house of the respondent. 10. The petitioner lodged an FIR in the Sidhgora P.S. against the respondent and his family members for demanding dowry and torture to the petitioner physically and mentally. In view of the above it has been prayed for a decree of dissolution of marriage solemnized on 24.02.2019. 11. The respondent-husband appeared in the case and filed his Written Statement in which he has stated that the present suit filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Denying the allegation of dowry demand it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner had earlier lodged the FIR being Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 164 of 2019 and in the aforesaid FIR which is quite exhaustive, the petitioner has not whispered a single word regarding demand of dowry at the instance of the respondent or his family members. 12. It is further submitted that the aforesaid false plea of demand of dowry has been invented by the petitioner solely with a wish to secure a false cause of action. It is absolutely false to allege that the father of the petitioner paid Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash to the respondent as per demand made by the respondent and his father. The marriage was solemnized absolutely free from demand of dowry and some of the movable articles mentioned in the FIR were given to the petitioner by her father by way of marriage presents and not as dowry. The wooden bed with cushions and pillows, almirah, dressing table, three, briefcases and a box made of tin were given to the 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 6 petitioner, which are still lying with the respondent and the petitioner is at liberty to take them back whenever wants it. Further while leaving the matrimonial home, the petitioner took all the gold jewelries which was purchased by the father of the petitioner through father of the respondent which were given to her as marriage presents. Further allegation of the petitioner that other domestic articles worth Rs. 15,00,000/- were given to the respondent and his family members is totally false and baseless. 13. The respondent and his father both are working as permanent employee in reputed companies and at no point of time the respondent or his parents have ever demanded a single penny or any other items far less Rs.20,00,000/- from the petitioner or her parents. The petitioner herself demanded the respondent to add her as joint account holder to his salary account. Neither the respondent nor any of his family members ever used any filthy language nor threatened with any dire consequences to life. The petitioner with malafide intention has made these false statements with a view to seek a false cause of action against the respondent. The respondent as a caring husband took care of each and every need and requirements of the petitioner. Likewise, the respondent's parents also always used to treat the petitioner like their own daughter and took care of each and everything she wished. Every day in the morning when the petitioner used to go to her job, the respondent's mother used to make Tiffin for her. 14. It has been stated that there was never any domestic violence in the respondent's house. She kept her personal belongings including all the jewelries. The respondent had bought a personal Air Conditioner for her comfort. She used to sleep in her own room with Air Conditioner all night. Respondent always used to attend her duties as per her wish at Tata Steel, 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 7 Jamshedpur without any obstruction where she is a high-income earning employee for more than eight years. Hence it is absolutely false to state that the respondent or his parents had tortured petitioner mentally and physically, created environment of domestic violence for the petitioner and did inhuman behaviour with the petitioner. 15. The respondent stated that he was having a healthy relationship with his wife like any other married couple no matter wherever they stayed, they stayed together i.e. Jamshedpur, Goa, Mumbai or any other parts of Maharashtra. It is further stated that after two days of marriage, the petitioner went to Mumbai with the respondent and they led their matrimonial life in Mumbai. The petitioner used to talk over her mobile for hours together and on being asked by the respondent, she used to give out that she was talking to her mother. After 3 to 4 days, the respondent again noticed that his wife (petitioner) was talking to somebody over mobile phone. The respondent secretly stood behind the petitioner/wife and overheard the entire conversation the petitioner was having with somebody. 16. The petitioner, however, disconnected the phone as soon as she could feel presence of the respondent. The respondent accosted petitioner and confronted her as to whom she was talking to, to which the petitioner confessed that the said person was her boy-friend with whom she was maintaining relationship even before the solemnization of their marriage and on being asked by the respondent she gave out the name of the person and the petitioner further told the respondent that she wants to maintain her relationship with the said boy and the respondent could not stop her from doing so. 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 8 17. The respondent submits that it is absolutely false to state that the petitioner left the house of the respondent on 21.08.2019 and had gone to live with her parents. On 7.5.2019, the petitioner and her respondent/husband came to Jamshedpur, where the family members tried to reason with the petitioner and requested the petitioner that she should not maintain any relationship with any other person other than her husband. Even then the petitioner used to threaten that she will lodge a false criminal complaint in police and send the respondent and his family members to jail. Thereafter, when the respondent's parents called the petitioner's father to come to their home and talk to the petitioner and try to convince her that whatever she was doing was wrong. The petitioner also started threatening the respondent and his parents for implicating them in false police complaint. The petitioner kept on threatening and after no constructive response from the petitioner's father, the respondent was left with no other option and accordingly one informatory petition being No. 42 of 2019 on 9.5.2019 was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, wherein he has disclosed a number of omission and commissions made by the petitioner. 18. It is further stated that on 11.5.2019 a meeting was convened in course of which, it was decided that Ashok Kumar Dubey (petitioner's father) should take his daughter (petitioner) from her sasural for few days, so that the matter may be subsided in the meantime. Accordingly, on 13.5.2019, at about 7.30 pm, Sonu Dubey, brother of the petitioner, came to the house of the respondent and the petitioner was formally taken to her parent's house. While going back to her parent's house, the petitioner took all her gold ornaments including those which were given by the respondent's family. 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 9 The respondent and petitioner have been living separately from 19.30 pm on 13.05.2019. The petitioner was staying at her parent residence since 13 May, 2019. All of a sudden on 21 August, 2021 at around 17:30 pm the petitioner came to the residence of respondent and started shouting and abusing the respondent and his family members, the petitioner did not have any decency of words and language towards the respondent and his family members.She had also brought about ten to fifteen men who were standing few meters away from the house of the respondent. Then the respondent and his family members locked their house and went outside of their home. The petitioner then called police by dialing 100 and filed a false complaint in Sidhgora Police Station by leveling all sorts of false and frivolous allegations against the respondent and other family members. 19. It is mentioned that the respondent has some photographs of his wife with her boyfriend showing the intimate relationship they had, which was shown along with informatory petition to the police and after making inquiry and being satisfied with the same the Sidhgora police allowed the family of the respondent to go home. On 1st September 2019 the respondent's mother had filed a written complaint in Mahila Aayog, Jharkhand against the harassment that was faced by her and other family members due to the ill behaviour at the instance of the petitioner. Despite receiving the notice by Mahila Aayog, the petitioner did not turn out before Mahila Aayog. On 2nd September, 2019 respondent and his family members came to know through a local news report that an FIR was lodged on them at Sidhgora Police Station on 1 Sep. 2019 being Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 164 of 2019 against the respondent and his father, mother, sister and brother-in-law. 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 10 20. There are false and baseless allegations and the said case is pending for trial. It has further resulted in a lot of mental harassment to the respondent- husband and his family members. The false and baseless allegations were later confirmed by the police, charge sheet was submitted in the instant case against the respondent and his family members of the respondent, police submitted that no preliminary case was made out and accordingly their names were not mentioned in the said charge sheet. 21. The averments made above it becomes manifest that the petitioner herself is a guilty spouse and the respondent is now convinced that it is not possible for him to lead a harmonious conjugal life with the petitioner any further, the respondent has no objection, if the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is dissolved by decree of divorce. 22. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant/petitioner-wife had a motion by filing a petition. 23. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, the learned Family Judge has framed altogether six issues which are as follows: (i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? (ii) Whether the Petitioner has got valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the respondent after solemnization of marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty? (iv) Whether the respondent has deserted the Petitioner since 21.08.2019 for a continuous period not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of this suit? (v) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to obtain a decree of divorce sought for? (vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief or reliefs of this suit? 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 11 24. The appellant/plaintiff-wife in order to establish her case, examined herself as P.W.1 and her father namely Ashok Kumar Dubey and her uncle Kamlesh Ojha as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. No documentary evidence has been filed in the suit by the appellant/plaintiff-wife. 25. On the other hand, the respondent has adduced evidence as R.W.1 Avinash Kumar Pandey (himself) and other witness R.W.2 Sanjay Kumar Pandey (father of the respondent). 26. The respondent-husband has produced documentary evidence, i.e., Ext- A-Certified copy of FIR, Ext.A/1-Certified copy of Chargesheet, Ext.B to B/3-Joint Photographs of the parties, Ext.C to C/5-Printout of Photograph of the wife of respondent and her boyfriend Shubham Kumar Singh, Ext.D- Certified copy of Informatory Petition No.42 of 2019 dated 09.05.2019 and Ext.E-Photocopy of application written by respondent’s mother to President, Rajya Mahila Ayog. 27. The evidences have been made on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter, the judgment has been passed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner -wife and held that the petitioner-wife is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and she is also entitled to receive a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondent-husband in lieu of cash and other properties received by him in the marriage, which is the subject matter of the present appeals. Submission of the learned counsel for the wife: 28. It has been submitted that the father of the appellant/wife has paid huge amount to the respondent at the time of marriage and further the respondent is employee of Religious Support Services and is monthly income is Rs. 1,25,000/-. Further, it has been submitted that the learned Family Court has 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 12 been wrongly mentioned that appellant-wife is an employee of Tata Steel since 2013 and is having monthly salary of Rs. 60,000/-. Rather, applicant/appellant-wife has stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that she was trainee in the year 2013 and became permanent in October, 2016 in Tata Steel and is having monthly salary of Rs. 22,000/-. Therefore, it has been submitted that the learned Family Court has wrongly assessed the income of the appellant-wife. 29. It has been submitted that the respondent/husband has already performed second marriage on 06.02.2024. It has been contended that huge amount has been spent in the marriage of the appellant/wife and several articles were given which is more that Rs. 8 lakhs but the learned family Court has directed to only pay Rs. 8 lakhs. 30. It has been submitted that in view of above facts the amount may kindly be enhanced and Rs. 8 lakhs as ordered by the learned court below, which has not been paid as yet, may kindly be directed to be paid to the appellant with interest. Submission of the learned counsel for the husband: 31. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-husband, while assailing the impugned judgment, has submitted that the judgment dated 26.05.2023 (decree dated 01.06.2023) is neither sustainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be set aside. 32. It has been contended that the Learned Family Court below has passed the impugned judgment and ordered mechanically and has not applied its judicious mind. 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 13 33. The learned counsel for the husband states and submits that the learned Court has completely overlooked while directing the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-in lieu of cash and other properties received. In this regard, it is stated that the amount / cash received had already been returned through bank transfer in favour to the father of the appellant-wife on 14.12.2018 much prior to the institution of the Suit and with respect to ornaments purchased by the petitioner and father of the petitioner has also been detained by the wife. 34. It has been submitted that the respondent husband is only aggrieved with respect to the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- directed to be paid by the respondent husband. 35. It has been contended that while passing the direction of Rs.8,00,000/- to be paid by the respondent husband, the learned Family Court failed to consider the fact that jewelleries were given by the respondent husband / father of the respondent to the appellant wife. By referring the aforesaid fact, it has been contended that the said part of order by which direction was passed upon husband to pay Rs.8,00,000/- in lieu of cash and other properties alleged to be received by the husband, is erroneous and not sustainable in eyes of law. Analysis: 36. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment. 37. Before adverting into merit of the case, it needs to refer herein the following admitted facts : 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 14 (i) The motion seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was instituted by the appellant/petitioner-wife before the learned Family Court. (ii) Upon consideration of the documentary materials and the oral testimonies adduced by both sides, the learned Family Court has granted a decree of divorce, and further directed the respondent-husband to pay a sum of ₹8,00,000/- in lieu of cash and other properties alleged to have been received by him at the time of marriage. (iii) Both parties i.e. the appellant-wife (respondent in F.A. No. 328 of 2023) and the respondent-husband (appellant in F.A. No. 328 of 2023), stand aggrieved only to the extent of that portion of the judgment whereby the respondent-husband was directed to pay the aforesaid sum of ₹8,00,000/- in lieu of cash and other properties alleged to have been received in marriage. (iv) The appellant-wife has assailed that portion of the judgment contending that the sum of ₹8,00,000/- awarded is wholly inadequate, whereas the respondent-husband, on the other hand, has urged that the said amount is an inflated figure. (v) It is further an admitted position that the respondent-husband has since solemnized a second marriage, from which he has been blessed with a daughter child. (vi) It is an admitted position that both the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband are employed personnel and are in receipt of a regular monthly salary from their respective vocations. 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 15 38. It needs to refer herein that it would be evident from order dated 26.03.2026 passed by this Court that the learned counsel for both the parties in both the appeals had sought a week time to have instruction on the issue of settlement and accordingly time sought for was granted by this Court. 39. Thereafter matter was taken up on 16.04.2026 wherein it has been submitted by the learned counsel for respondent/husband that there is no chance of settlement. In view of aforesaid submission since the present matter needs adjudication on the issue of alimony, the Court had directed both the parties to file affidavit showing their worth movable, immovable property and the payslip. For ready reference the 16.04.2026 is being quoted herein which reads as under: “07 / 16.04.2026 Reference may be made to the order dated 26.03.2026 so far as it relates to passing of the order in the instant appeal. The matter was deferred for a week to have instruction on the issue of settlement. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband has submitted that there is no chance of settlement. 3. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the matter now needs adjudication on the issue of the alimony. 4. Let the affidavit be filed on behalf of both the parties showing their worth the movable, immovable property and the payslip. 5. Let such affidavit be filed within two weeks. 6. List after two weeks i.e. on 01.05.2026 under the same heading.” 40. Again, the instant appeals were taken on 14th May 2026 and in compliance of the order dated 16.04.2026 affidavit showing their worth have been filed by both of the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant wife that she is not, before the Court, for the passing of order for monthly maintenance, as she has already solemnized marriage and also working in Tata Steel Ltd. However, the emphasis of the argument is that, at the time of solemnization of marriage, the expenditure incurred was around Rs. 33 lakhs, details thereof have been furnished in 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 16 paragraph-2 of the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the appellant- wife. Accordingly, after conclusion of the argument on the point of alimony, judgment was reserved. For ready reference the order dated 14.05.2026 is being quoted herein which reads as under: “Order No.09/Dated 14th May, 2026 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has sought for leave of this Court to accept the affidavit, which has been filed in pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2026, copy thereof has been served upon the learned counsel for the respondent-husband. 2. Let this same be taken on record. 3. An affidavit, in terms of order dated 16.04.2026 has been filed on behalf of both the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband has not intended to file response to the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant-wife. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife has submitted that she is not, before the Court, for the passing of order for monthly maintenance, as she has already solemnized marriage and also working in Tata Steel Ltd. However, the emphasis of the argument is that, at the time of solemnization of marriage, the expenditure incurred was around Rs. 33 lakhs, details thereof have been furnished in paragraph-2 of the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the appellant-wife. 6. Arguments concluded on the issue of alimony. 7. Judgment Reserved. 41. Now adverting to merit of the case, it is evident from the order impugned that the learned Family Court has taken into consideration the entire aspects of the case and had passed the order of dissolution of marriage and direction was passed upon the respondent husband to pay rupees eight 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 17 lakh to the petitioner/wife in lieu of cash and other properties received by him. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment are being quoted as under: “43. The respondent has admitted in para 39 of his cross- examination that he had received T.V., AC, Utensils, Clothes etc. in Tilak but he does not know that the aforesaid articles were worth Rs. 2,00,000/-. Similarly, respondent's father RW-2 has also admitted receiving Utensils, Clothes, Fruits, Sweets etc. in Tilak but he cannot state the cost of the aforesaid articles. However, RW-2 has admitted that he had received a cheque of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the father of the petitioner but he returned Rs. 1,00,000/- through cheque to Ashok Kumar Dubey. He stated that this amount was given to him for purchase of jewelry and he had purchased jewelry worth Rs. 6,50,000/- from it. However, he has not produced any evidence of returr. of Rs. 1,00,000/-through cheque to petitioner's father. Thus, from admission of respondent's father in his own testimony before the court, it is established that ne had received Rs. 8,00,000/- from the father of the petitioner. Further, though no detail list of articles or evidence of their cost has been given by petitioner, however from testimony of respondent and his father and their own admission it is also established that certain items like T.V., AC, Utensils, Clothes etc. were received by them in Tilak ceremony from petitioner side which have not been returned. And it is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has already received Rs.2,00,000/- as per order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in ABA. 44. Now, this court has to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to return of any properties u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 or the petitioner is entitled to get alimony as claimed u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 45.Let us take up first the issue of granting permanent alimony to the petitioner. Reading of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act indicates that on an application for the purpose of seeking permanent alimony, made by either of the spouse (wife or the husband), the Court at the time of passing the decree or at any time subsequent thereto, pay maintenance and support to the applicant, which may be gross sum or monthly or periodical payment. The factors which are required to be considered for just determination 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 18 of permanent alimony and maintenance as indicated in the provision are:- (i) the respondent's own income and other property, (ii) the income and other property of the applicant, (iii) the conduct of the parties, (iv) other circumstances of the case. 46.In the instant case, from the disclosure affidavits of both sides, it appears that the monthly income of the petitioner is near about same as the monthly income of the respondent and she is living in better position than that of the respondent as she is maintaining two cars and a two wheeler with company accommodation and she has no dependent on her. Under the aforesaid scenario, it would not be just and proper to direct the respondent to provide any permanent alimony to the petitioner as claimed. 47.However, what the court finds, that as per admission of RW2, the father of respondent, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was said to him by the father of the petitioner. Even though the respondent's father claimed that he returned Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque to her father and purchased ornaments worth Rs.6,50,000/- from rest of the amount this explanation is difficult to believe as he has not produced any evidence of return of amount and the ornaments to the petitioner. The bank statement of the father of the petitioner corroborates the payment of Rs. 6,00,000/-to the parents of the respondent through three cheques of Rs.2,00,000/-each. Besides it is also admitted by respondent and his father that T.V., A.C., clothes, utensils, etc were given in Tilak to them on behalf of petitioner and the said articles are still lying with them. The petitioner has claimed said articles to be worth Rs. 2,00,000/- which value, though denied by respondent, but by general estimation the amount is not exaggerated. Hence, in my considered view, the total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is liable to be returned by the respondent. As the petitioner has already received Rs. 2,00,000/- as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in A.B.A. No. 2474 of 2020 (Avinash Kumar Pandey vrs State of Jharkhand) the said amount has to be adjusted in any payment to be made by the respondent. 48. Accordingly, after the adjustment of above amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, this Court directs that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- in lieu of the cash and other properties admittedly received by him in marriage. The said amount shall be paid within a period of six month from the date of decree, failure of which, it is needless to say, that the petitioner will be at liberty to recover the 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 19 said amount through the Court. For that purpose, the decree shall be treated as the money decree. This issue is therefore decided accordingly. CONCLUSION 49. So, from the above discussed evidence, facts and circumstances, I find that the Petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion U/s 13 (1) (i-a) and 13(1) (i-b) Hindu Marriage Act. And she is also entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-from the respondent in lieu of the cash and other properties admittedly received by him in the marriage. And accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED 50. That the suit of the petitioner Kumari Puja be and the same is decreed against the respondent Avinash Kumar Pandey on contest but without any order as to cost. And the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 24.02.2019 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. And the divorce will be effective from the date of decree. 51.Further, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- in lieu of the cash and other properties received by him in marriage. The said amount shall be paid within a period of six months from the date of decree, failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to recover the said amount through the process of Court. And for that purpose, the decree shall be treated as the money decree. Office to prepare the decree accordingly.” 42. Thus, from the aforesaid paragraphs of the impugned judgment it is evident that the learned Family Court has denied the permanent alimony to the appellant/petitioner wife by observing that since from the disclosure of affidavits of both sides, it appears that the monthly income of the petitioner/appellant/wife is near about same as the monthly income of the respondent and she is living in better position than that of the respondent as she is maintaining two cars and a two wheeler with company 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 20 accommodation and she is not dependent on her. Under the aforesaid scenario, it would not be just and proper to direct the respondent to provide any permanent alimony to the petitioner as claimed. However, the learned Family Court taking into consideration the bank statement of the father of the petitioner which corroborates the payment of Rs. 6,00,000/-to the parents of the respondent husband through three cheques of Rs.2,00,000/- each and further taking into consideration the admission by respondent and his father that T.V., A.C., clothes, utensils, etc. were given in Tilak to them and the said articles are still lying with them and has assessed that the total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is liable to be returned by the respondent husband to the appellant/wife. 43. This Court in the aforesaid backdrop facts and submission requires to consider as to: “what would be the appropriate quantum to be paid by the respondent husband to the appellant/wife on the basis of pleadings available on record? 44. It is evident from paragraph 46 of the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Family Court that the learned Family Court has denied the permanent alimony to appellant/petitioner wife on the ground that as per the disclosure affidavit, the monthly income of the petitioner/appellant/wife is near about same as the monthly income of the respondent husband and she is living in better position than that of the respondent and she has no dependent on her. 45. At this juncture it needs to refer herein the provision of law as contained under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein it has been provided that any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 21 made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent. For ready reference, Section 25 of the Act, 1955 is quoted as under: “25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.—(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant 1 [the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case], it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent. (2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub- section (1), it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just. (3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 22 wedlock, 2 [it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just].” 46. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that concept of permanent alimony as provided under Section 25 have been enacted with the object of removing the hardship of the wife or the husband with no independent income sufficient for living or meeting litigant expenses; such a leave can be granted as well who may also be deprived of the same on proof of having sexual intercourse outside the wedlock. It is also settled position of law that the Court may grant permanent alimony to the party while disposing of the main application even if application has been moved; meaning thereby the intent of the Act is to remove the handicap/hardship of a wife of husband by passing an appropriate order at the appropriate stage either under Section 24 or 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The basic behind this is to sustain the live of husband or wife, if having no sufficient source of income. 47. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the intent of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act in catena of Judgments wherein it has been observed that Section 25 of Act 1955 is an enabling provision. It empowers the court in a matrimonial case to consider facts and circumstances of the spouse applying and deciding whether or not to grant permanent alimony. Sub- section (1) of Section 25 provides that a matrimonial Court exercising the jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act may at the time of passing a decree or at any time subsequent thereto on an Application made to it, order to pay maintenance. 48. Thus, a power is conferred on the Matrimonial Court to grant permanent alimony or maintenance on the basis of a decree of divorce passed under the Hindu Marriage Act even subsequent to the date of passing of the decree on the basis of an application made in that behalf. Sub-section (2) of Section 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 23 25 confers a power on the Court to vary, modify or rescind the order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 in case of change in circumstances. The power under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 is an independent power. The said power can be exercised if the Court is satisfied that the wife in whose favour an order under Subsection (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made has not remained chaste. In such event, at the instance of the other party, the Court may vary, modify or rescind the order under Sub- section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 49. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200.For ready reference, paragraph 14 of the judgment is quoted as under: “14. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers power upon the court to grant a permanent alimony to either spouse who claims the same by making an application. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act confers ample power on the court to vary, modify or discharge any order for permanent alimony or permanent maintenance that may have been made in any proceeding under the Act under the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 25. In exercising the power under Section 25(2), the court would have regard to the “change in the circumstances of the parties”. There must be some change in the circumstances of either party which may have to be taken into account when an application is made under sub-section (2) of Section 25 for variation, modification or rescission of the order as the court may deem just.” 50. We may note here that an amendment has been brought to Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the Act No. 68 of 1976 with effect from 27th May 1996. Earlier, it was provided under Sub-section (3) 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 24 of Section 25 that if the Court was satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made has not remained chaste, it shall rescind the order. The words “it shall rescind the order” appearing in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 were replaced by the said amendment by the words “it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order …..”. The legislature in its wisdom by the said amendment has provided that after the facts stated in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act are established, the Court may vary, modify or rescind any such order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, after 1976, there is a discretion conferred on the Court by Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of declining to rescind, vary or modify the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 thereof, even if on an Application made by the husband, it is established that the wife has not remained chaste after the decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 25. 51. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 while appreciating the core of Section 25 of the Act 1955 has observed that for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent's own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: “12. As per Section 25, while considering the claim for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent's own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. It is further seen that 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 25 the court considering such claim has to consider all the above relevant materials and determine the amount which is to be just for living standard. No fixed formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has to be in the nature of things which depend on various facts and circumstances of each case. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute. The courts also have to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. These are all the broad principles courts have to be kept (sic keep) in mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony.” 52. It needs to refer herein that no arithmetic formula can be adopted for grant of permanent alimony to wife. However, status of parties, their respective social needs, financial capacity of husband and other obligations must be taken into account. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic 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. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: “33. We have reproduced the aforesaid orders to highlight that the husband had agreed to buy a flat at Hyderabad. However, when the matter was listed thereafter, there was disagreement with regard to 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 26 the locality of the flat arranged by the husband and, therefore, the matter was heard on merits. We have already opined that the husband has made out a case for divorce by proving mental cruelty. As a decree is passed, the wife is entitled to permanent alimony for her sustenance. Be it stated, while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic 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. In Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar [(2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] (SCC p. 116, para 12) while dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, this Court has observed 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 in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party.” 53. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has extensively dealt with the issue of granting interim/permanent alimony and has categorically held that the objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the Court while considering the issue of maintenance, should consider the factors like the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 27 sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: “77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. 78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] 79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 28 sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [ReemaSalkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339] 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.” 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 29 54. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, it is pertinent to record that this Court had, at the initial stage, directed the parties to file affidavits disclosing their movable and immovable properties along with pay-slips, keeping in view that the issue involved herein pertains to the grant of permanent alimony but from thorough examination of the pleadings made by the appellant-wife in F.A. No. 189 of 2025, it is manifest therefrom that the appellant-wife has not made claim for permanent alimony; rather, her prayer is to seeking enhancement of the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- directed to be paid by the respondent-husband under the order of the learned Family Court. 55. However, affidavit has been filed on behalf of both the parties wherein the appellant-wife has taken the stand that in paragraph no. 37 of the impugned order i.e. Original Suit No. 475 of 2021 it has been wrongly mentioned that applicant is employee of Tata Steel since 2013 and is having monthly salary of Rs. 60,000/-. Rather, applicant/appellant-wife has stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that she was trainee in the year 2013 and became permanent in October, 2016 in Tata Steel and is having monthly salary of Rs. 22,000/-. 56. On the other hand, respondent-husband has stated in his affidavit that he has married again and having a daughter from his second marriage. Further has been stated that altogether 5 persons are dependent on him namely, Astha Kumari (Wife), Kritika Pandey (Daughter), Gita Pandey (Mother), Sanjay Kumar Pandey (Father) and Surendra Nath Pandey (Grand Father). Moreover, loan has been taken of amount Rs. 21,50,000/-. 57. It needs to refer herein that from the order dated 14.05.2026 passed by this Court, it is evident that the appellant-wife has remarried and has no 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 30 interest in getting per month alimony. However, she has stated that since the expenditure incurred was around Rs. 33 lakhs, has occurred in her marriage therefore the direction passed by the learned family court upon the respondent husband to pay Rs. 80,00,00/- to the petitioner/appellant wife in lieu of article received by the respondent in marriage. 58. As is evident from the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court, the direction upon the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- in lieu of the cash and other properties received by him at the time of marriage appears to have been made under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the same constitutes the bone of contention in the present appeals. 59. At this juncture it would be appropriate to discuss the core of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 wherein it has been stipulated that in any proceeding under the Act 1955, the court may make such provision in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife. 60. Section 27 provides for determination of rights of the parties to the properties belonging to both of them jointly or either of them at the time of disposal of a main petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act. For ready reference same is being quoted as under: "Disposal of property-In any proceeding under this Act, the court may make such provision in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife." 61. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 empowers matrimonial courts to dispose of and distribute joint property presented to both the 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 31 husband and wife at or about the time of their wedding. It ensures the fair division of joint marital assets within an active divorce or separation proceeding. This section specifically applies to property belonging jointly to both the husband and the wife. It does not cover the exclusive, individual property of the wife (like her Stridhan) or the exclusive property of the husband. 62. The property must have been presented "at or about the time of marriage," although courts have interpreted this to include gifts and property exchanged before or after the wedding ceremony, provided it is directly relatable to the marriage. Further, it may be tied to an active matrimonial proceeding (e.g., a divorce petition) to avoid the multiplicity of litigation. 63. Thus, Section 27 Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is an important provision that governs the rights of spouses in property disputes. This section provides that any property acquired by either spouse during the course of the marriage is to be considered joint property, and both spouses have an equal right to it. 64. Section 27 also provides that if one spouse has acquired property prior to the marriage, then that property remains the sole property of that spouse. This means that the other spouse does not have any right to the property, and cannot claim a share of it. 65. In addition, Section 27 also provides that if one spouse has acquired property through inheritance or gift, then that property remains the sole property of that spouse. This means that the other spouse does not have any right to the property, and cannot claim a share of it. 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 32 66. Finally, Section 27 also provides that if one spouse has acquired property through a will or other legal instrument, then that property remains the sole property of that spouse. This means that the other spouse does not have any right to the property, and cannot claim a share of it. 67. Overall, Section 27 Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is an important provision that governs the rights of spouses in property disputes. It provides that any property acquired by either spouse during the course of the marriage is to be considered joint property, and both spouses have an equal right to it. It also provides that if one spouse has acquired property prior to the marriage, through inheritance or gift, or through a will or other legal instrument, then that property remains the sole property of that spouse. This ensures that each spouse is able to retain their own property, and that the other spouse does not have any right to it. 68. On a plain reading of the Section 27 it becomes obvious that the Matrimonial Court trying any proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has the jurisdiction to make such provision in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented "at or about the time of marriage" which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife. This Section provides an alternate remedy to the wife so that she can recover the property B which is covered by the Section, by including it in the decree in the matrimonial proceeding, without, having to take recourse to the filing of a separate Civil Suit and avoid further litigation. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam Vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam reported in (1997) 7 SCC 500. 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 33 69. As per the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent- husband, it has been contended that the respondent-husband has already solemnized second marriage and a daughter has been born from the said wedlock. In view thereof, the possibility of conciliation between the parties stands foreclosed, and the only consideration that remains for adjudication is with respect to the propriety of the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- as directed by the learned Family Court. 70. In order to appreciate the aforesaid issue, this Court has carefully examined several paragraphs of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court. From such examination, it is evident that the learned Family Court has extensively dealt with the matter by duly appreciating the claims advanced by both parties. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment are being quoted herein which reads as under: “43. The respondent has admitted in para 39 of his cross- examination that he had received T.V., AC, Utensils, Clothes etc. in Tilak but he does not know that the aforesaid articles were worth Rs. 2,00,000/-. Similarly, respondent's father RW-2 has also admitted receiving Utensils, Clothes, Fruits, Sweets etc. in Tilak but he cannot state the cost of the aforesaid articles. However, RW-2 has admitted that he had received a cheque of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the father of the petitioner but he returned Rs. 1,00,000/- through cheque to Ashok Kumar Dubey. He stated that this amount was given to him for purchase of jewelry and he had purchased jewelry worth Rs. 6,50,000/- from it. However, he has not produced any evidence of returr. of Rs. 1,00,000/-through cheque to petitioner's father. Thus, from admission of respondent's father in his own testimony before the court, it is established that ne had received Rs. 8,00,000/- from the father of the petitioner. Further, though no detail list of articles or evidence of their cost has been given by petitioner, however from testimony of respondent and his father and their own admission it is also established that certain items like T.V., AC, Utensils, Clothes 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 34 etc. were received by them in Tilak ceremony from petitioner side which have not been returned. And it is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has already received Rs.2,00,000/- as per order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in ABA. 44. Now, this court has to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to return of any properties u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 or the petitioner is entitled to get alimony as claimed u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 47.However, what the court finds, that as per admission of RW2, the father of respondent, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was said to him by the father of the petitioner. Even though the respondent's father claimed that he returned Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque to her father and purchased ornaments worth Rs.6,50,000/- from rest of the amount this explanation is difficult to believe as he has not produced any evidence of return of amount and the ornaments to the petitioner. The bank statement of the father of the petitioner corroborates the payment of Rs. 6,00,000/-to the parents of the respondent through three cheques of Rs.2,00,000/-each. Besides it is also admitted by respondent and his father that T.V., A.C., clothes, utensils, etc were given in Tilak to them on behalf of petitioner and the said articles are still lying with them. The petitioner has claimed said articles to be worth Rs. 2,00,000/- which value, though denied by respondent, but by general estimation the amount is not exaggerated. Hence, in my considered view, the total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is liable to be returned by the respondent. As the petitioner has already received Rs. 2,00,000/- as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in A.B.A. No. 2474 of 2020 (Avinash Kumar Pandey vrs State of Jharkhand) the said amount has to be adjusted in any payment to be made by the respondent. 48. Accordingly, after the adjustment of above amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, this Court directs that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- in lieu of the cash and other properties admittedly received by him in marriage. The said amount shall be paid within a period of six month from the date of decree, failure of which, it is needless to say, that the petitioner will be at liberty to recover the said amount through the Court. For that purpose, the decree shall be treated as the money decree. This issue is therefore decided accordingly.” 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 35 71. It is evident from paragraph 43 of the impugned judgment as quoted and referred hereinabove that the learned Family Court has taken into consideration the fact that respondent has admitted in para 39 of his cross- examination that he had received T.V., AC, Utensils, Clothes etc. in Tilak and has also taken into consideration that the respondent’s father RW-2 has also admitted receiving Utensils, Clothes, Fruits, Sweets etc. in Tilak. The learned Family Court has categorically taken note of the fact that RW-2 (father of the respondent husband) has admitted that he had received a cheque of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the father of the petitioner. 72. Upon perusal of the aforesaid admitted facts, the learned Family Court has reached the conclusion that, on the basis of the admission made by the respondent’s father in his own testimony before the Court, it stands established that a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- had been received from the father of the petitioner-wife. Further, in reference to the admission made by the respondent-husband and his father (RW-2) regarding articles such as T.V., A.C., utensils, clothes, and upon taking into consideration the claim of the petitioner-wife that the said articles were worth Rs. 2,00,000/-, the learned Family Court has fixed the total amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as liable to be returned by the respondent. 73. The learned Family Court, upon consideration of the aforesaid admitted facts, has further taken note of the circumstance that the petitioner-wife had already received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in A.B.A. No. 2474 of 2020 (Avinash Kumar Pandey v. State of Jharkhand). The learned Family Court, therefore, observed that the said amount was liable to be adjusted against any payment to be made by the respondent, and accordingly directed the respondent- 2026:JHHC:19782-DB 36 husband to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the petitioner-wife under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 74. From the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is apparent that the learned Family Court has extensively appreciated the claims of both parties within the purview of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 75. Accordingly, it is the considered view of this Court that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court warrants no interference. 76. With the aforesaid observations, as made hereinabove, the instant appeals stand dismissed and as such, disposed of. 77. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 30/06/2026 Rohit/A.F.R. Uploaded on 06.07.2026