JUDGMENT : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Prayer: 1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 16.12.2022 and decree signed on 22.12.2022 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-1, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No.345 of 2017 filed by the plaintiff-appellant- husband under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed. Factual Matrix 2. The case of the appellant-husband, in brief as it can be gathered from the plaint is that the respondent is the legally married wife of the appellant and their marriage was performed on 03.08.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs at Adra, Dist. Purulia, West Bengal. 3. The respondent accompanied her husband on the next day of their marriage to her matrimonial house where the marriage ceremony was celebrated to live with him and to lead their happy conjugal relationship. Thus, the marriage between the parties was duly consummated. 4. Both parties stayed at Durgapur, only about a month in between which the respondent had been to her parents’ house at Adra for a week and finally thereafter the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife went to Jamshedpur at appellant-husband’s quarter and started to lead their conjugal life. 5. After retirement from service, the father of the appellant-husband settled at Durgapur with his wife. The appellant-husband is the only son of his old parents, who are suffering from various ailments. Unfortunately, the respondent-wife was not at all willing to live at her in-law’s house even she does not like that her parents-in-law should visit to their ISWP quarter at Jamshedpur at any point of time. Thus, the parents of the appellant-husband used to come occasionally very rare and came twice only and stayed there total for three months but both the times the respondent misbehaved with them. Even the respondent- wife does not like off and on visit of appellant-husband to his native place Durgapur to see his ailing and old aged parents. 6. The cordial relationship of husband and wife could not continue for longer period as mother and elder unmarried sister of the respondent were maintaining their regular visits to the house of the appellant-husband and they were also putting regular interference in the affairs between appellant-husband and his wife in all matters. 7. 6. The cordial relationship of husband and wife could not continue for longer period as mother and elder unmarried sister of the respondent were maintaining their regular visits to the house of the appellant-husband and they were also putting regular interference in the affairs between appellant-husband and his wife in all matters. 7. The respondent’s mother and elder unmarried sister insulted, humiliated and misbehaved several times not only the appellant-husband but also his parents over phone and even in front of the relatives and guests of the respondent. 8. The respondent neither showed any regard to any superior members in her marital house nor the appellant- husband except at the time of marketing. The respondent used to quarrel with the appellant-husband on flimsy grounds or baseless issues and threatened to implicate the appellant-husband and his parents in false criminal cases and give divorce. 9. The appellant-husband kept mum thinking that the situation might be changed in future. But the respondent day by day appeared as rude, obstinate, ill-tempered lady and she used to refuse to render her matrimonial duties and ethics towards the appellant-husband and his old parents. 10. In the meantime, due to the said wedlock the respondent conceived at the ISWP quarter in Jamshedpur. In the month of August 2013, when the respondent-wife was three months pregnant, she went to her parents house at Adra against the will and wishes of the appellant-husband as the appellant-husband was interested to have his child delivered at Jamshedpur where he has good and free medical facility than Adra. However finally on 03.02.2014 the respondent was shifted to Bankura for better medical facility where she gave birth to a female child named Adrisa Ray. 11. From that time of birth till discharge from the nursing home the appellant-husband stayed at Bankura to maintain all required responsibilities both as a husband and father of a new born baby. Thereafter, on several occasions, the appellant-husband had been to his in-laws’ house at Adra to bring back the respondent with baby but all his efforts went in vain. But from the very beginning the appellant-husband bear all costs for baby regarding clothes, foods, treatment. The appellant-husband was several times abused and assaulted by his wife at his in-laws’ quarter at Adra. On 5 th and 6 th April 2014, the appellant-husband was there at Adra for medical treatment of baby’s feet. But from the very beginning the appellant-husband bear all costs for baby regarding clothes, foods, treatment. The appellant-husband was several times abused and assaulted by his wife at his in-laws’ quarter at Adra. On 5 th and 6 th April 2014, the appellant-husband was there at Adra for medical treatment of baby’s feet. In midnight at about 3.30 am the respondent started false shouting that "Bapi, Maa, Didi, my husband pressed my neck" hence by that noise, hue and cry his mother-in-law entered into the room and started assaulting and abusing the appellant-husband in filthy language. 12. Thereafter, to see the old parents of the appellant- husband and to finalize the date of "Annaprasana" he had been to Durgapur on 17.05.2014 and stayed till 21.05.2014 along with respondent and baby where the function was supposed to be celebrated. During the said period also respondent misbehaved with the appellant-husband and his old parents by derogatory statements in presence of neighbours and guests who had come to see the newly born baby. The respondent never cares for the prestige of the appellant-husband and his old parents. Even without finalizing the date of Annaprasana of Adrisa the respondent threatened that if she is not sent to Adra, she will commit suicide or implicate them in false cases like rape, dowry etc. Also, she made so many loose talks about character of appellant-husband in filthy language. Having no alternative the appellant-husband took the respondent to her parent’s house at Adra along with the baby on 22.05.2014 where taking advantage of helpless position in presence of some unidentified persons, he was confined to a room by his mother-in-law & sister-in-law and not only abused but also assaulted mercilessly and at that time father-in-law of the appellant-husband was at Hyderabad for his official training. The mother-in-law hit the appellant-husband by her fists. Suddenly the appellant-husband got a chance to abscond. Thereafter the appellant-husband returned to Jamshedpur alone in heavily disgusted mind and got medically treated for his injuries. The respondent, her mother and unmarried sister never hesitated to abuse and assault or never repent on their misbehaviour or mental and physical torture with the appellant-husband. Suddenly the appellant-husband got a chance to abscond. Thereafter the appellant-husband returned to Jamshedpur alone in heavily disgusted mind and got medically treated for his injuries. The respondent, her mother and unmarried sister never hesitated to abuse and assault or never repent on their misbehaviour or mental and physical torture with the appellant-husband. The appellant- husband submitted written complaint against the respondent’s mother and unmarried elder sister for future reference to lead a healthy and peaceful life ahead before the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand and served the copy to a Human Rights association, Jamshedpur, GM HR & Admn. of ISWPL, Telco P.S., Aurovinda P.S. Durgapur, Kashipore P.S. Adra, Supdt. of Police Purulia, West Bengal. Thereafter, on several attempts the appellant-husband tried to bring back his wife and minor baby at Jamshedpur at ISWP quarter but all the efforts went in vain and finding no other way the appellant-husband preferred to file a case of Matrimonial Suit No. 223 of 2014, u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, and ultimately at the intervention of their common well- wishers and mainly maternal uncles and aunts of the appellant-husband, the matter was amicably settled and the respondent along with the minor baby were brought to the quarter of the appellant-husband at Jamshedpur on 12.10.2014. Since then, the appellant-husband and respondent started living as husband and wife. The appellant-husband under anticipation that the respondent will continue the conjugal right peacefully withdrew the said matrimonial suit in the month of November 2014. Such cordial relationship between the appellant-husband and the respondent could not continue for any longer period as the earlier ugly dispute of respondent reiterated by regular visit to her parental house (Adra) at the instigation of her mother and unmarried elder sister who also used to visit the house of the appellant-husband. 13. In the meantime, the minor daughter of the appellant-husband was taken to Kolkata for operating her right feet on 07.04.2015 where parents of both appellant- husband and respondent-wife visited to see their ailing grandchild. Ultimately after treatment the respondent with her just operated child came back to Jamshedpur with the appellant-husband. The parents of the appellant-husband also came with them but parents of the respondent returned to their residence at Adra. But the normal peace and tranquility in their mind was found seriously disturbed and the respondent started picking up quarrels with the appellant-husband and her parents-in-laws on baseless issues. The parents of the appellant-husband also came with them but parents of the respondent returned to their residence at Adra. But the normal peace and tranquility in their mind was found seriously disturbed and the respondent started picking up quarrels with the appellant-husband and her parents-in-laws on baseless issues. On 21.4.2015 the respondent openly disclosed that she will give good lesson to the appellant-husband and his parents by implicating them in various concocted criminal cases. She also called her parents, elder sister and brother intimating false situation. That again all of them reached at appellant-husband’s quarter and openly gave out threats to the appellant-husband and his parents with dire consequences. The appellant-husband tried his level best to settle the matter at the intervention of their common well- wishers, but all went in vain. Finally, the respondent left Jamshedpur by her own wish around 10.00 pm along with just operated ailing minor child and taken away all the gold and diamond jewelries of both sides with earlier planning. The respondent, her mother, father and elder unmarried sister were implying wrong allegation to the close friends, colleagues, relatives of appellant husband and did not hesitate to wrongly blame about the character upon the appellant-husband and his parents. Mother and unmarried elders sister was giving threats over phone to the appellant- husband and his parents, for which the appellant-husband has got no courage to see his daughter. The respondent did not return back to the house of the appellant-husband in spite of repeated requests and several efforts made by the appellant-husband. The appellant-husband apprehending serious nature of offences, initiated an informatory petition u/s 39 Cr.P.C. before the learned court of CJM. at Jamshedpur which was registered as informatory petition No. 472 of 2015 on 16.5.2015. Instead of trying to settle the family matter by the respondent or return back with her minor child within two months she preferred to initate a case for grant of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the J.M. at Bankura (West Bengal) registered as Misc. Case No. 56 of 2015. The appellant-husband appeared from the starting and the respondent obtained an order for regular maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. 14. Accordingly, the appellant-husband is paying the said sum to the respondent continuously. But the respondent, her parents and elder unmarried sister continued their atrocities towards petitioner. Case No. 56 of 2015. The appellant-husband appeared from the starting and the respondent obtained an order for regular maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. 14. Accordingly, the appellant-husband is paying the said sum to the respondent continuously. But the respondent, her parents and elder unmarried sister continued their atrocities towards petitioner. From filing the case u/s 125 to till now the respondent with her parental family members and unknown hooligans attacked several times at the residence of the appellant-husband in Jamshedpur, his office and Bankura court premises to destroy his good reputation in the society and inside the company. The appellant-husband was compelled to report the matter to the Telco P.S., Bankura P.S. and Jamshedpur City Dy.S.P. in writing separately which were received on 28.10.2015, 28.3.2016, 11.8.2016 respectively, but no action has yet been taken by any concerned. Last two incidents were remarkably pre-planned by the respondent along with her mother, father, elder unmarried sister and number of unknown hooligans attacked the appellant- husband and his old aged parents at his ISWP quarter also with the press reporter. The respondent gave illegal wrong statement against the appellant-husband and his parents which was published on local newspaper on 09.08.2016 to destroy his social and official images. On 28.08.2016 the respondent again attacked the appellant-husband at his company quarter and started abusing in filthy language and they openly gave out threats that unless the appellant- husband make payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondent, they will not allow the appellant-husband to live peacefully rather they will take all possible steps to get the appellant-husband terminated from his service. Ultimately a complaint case was initiated against the respondent and others which was registered as C/1 Case No. 2667 of 2016. The appellant-husband has been deserted for a pretty long period right from 21.04.2015. Apart from this, the appellant- husband has been subjected with serious type of mental and physical cruelty at the hands of the respondent in the matter stated in the foregoing paragraphs. Thus the appellant-husband found no alternative but to prefer this application for dissolution of marriage through a decree of divorce and hence this application. 15. Apart from this, the appellant- husband has been subjected with serious type of mental and physical cruelty at the hands of the respondent in the matter stated in the foregoing paragraphs. Thus the appellant-husband found no alternative but to prefer this application for dissolution of marriage through a decree of divorce and hence this application. 15. Both the parties have lastly resided at the house of the appellant-husband at Jamshedpur on 21.04.2015 within the jurisdiction of this court and thereafter there had never been any opportunity to them to live together as husband and wife at any place. In view of the above made submissions it has been prayed for a decree of dissolution of marriage solemnized on 03.08.2012. 16. Respondent appeared in this case and filed her written statement denying the allegations levelled against her in the petition. 17. Admitting the date of marriage, it is submitted that the facts asserted about the unwillingness of respondent to live at her in-laws’ house and her dislike of the parents-in- law visiting their quarter at Jamshedpur, has been made with oblique motive to justify the cause of the petition whereas the true state of fact is that appellant-husband’s mother lived with the respondent and committed torture on her and in-spite of that respondent led their conjugal life without any unwanted circumstances and in consequence thereof the respondent gave birth to a female child suffering from “Congenital Vertical Talus” disease since birth. 18. It has been stated that other allegations made against the respondent are based on afterthought of the appellant-husband. He never mentioned any specific time or date of injury on the basis of which claim of the appellant-husband can be said to be true. 19. It is further stated that when respondent became pregnant then appellant-husband and his parents did not provide proper food, medical treatment and treated her like a maid servant who was neither allowed to go outside her matrimonial house nor she was provided medical treatment while she was seriously ill. 19. It is further stated that when respondent became pregnant then appellant-husband and his parents did not provide proper food, medical treatment and treated her like a maid servant who was neither allowed to go outside her matrimonial house nor she was provided medical treatment while she was seriously ill. After birth of female child the appellant-husband always threatened the respondent that she gave a female child and she is suffering from vertical talus and appellant-husband never helped her in her treatment then respondent came to Jamshedpur and requested him to help female child but the appellant- husband and his parents did not allow her to enter in the house and closed the grill and made false allegations against the respondent and her family members. 20. It is further stated that the facts asserted regarding the filing of Matrimonial Suit No. 223/2014, u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, have been made by the appellant-husband only to save his skin which is crystal clear from the order sheet of Matrimonial Suit No. 223 of 2014. The respondent never lodged the criminal cases against the appellant- husband as she hoped the matter would get settled but from the intention of the appellant-husband it is crystal clear that appellant-husband lodged the false and fabricated case against the respondent and her family members. The appellant-husband without any sufficient cause voluntarily thrown her out from his house on the other hand the respondent is willing to restore and lead her conjugal life with all the obligations of being a wife and therefore appellant-husband has no cause of action to get any such relief. It is therefore, prayed that the suit may kindly be dismissed. 21. The case proceeded for evidence during which the appellant has produced and examined three witnesses including himself. 22. The respondent-wife has produced and examined altogether three witnesses including herself. 23. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed six issues for adjudication of lis the , which were decided against the appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and decreed the suit on contest in the following terms : “39. 22. The respondent-wife has produced and examined altogether three witnesses including herself. 23. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed six issues for adjudication of lis the , which were decided against the appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and decreed the suit on contest in the following terms : “39. So, from the above discussed evidence, facts and circumstances, I conclude that the essential ingredients of sec 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) H.M. Act have not been satisfied and the petitioner has not been able to establish his case of getting divorce from the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion, so he is not entitled for divorce U/s 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. And accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED 40. That the suit of the petitioner is dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost. Office to prepare the decree accordingly.” 24. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the judgment passed on 16.12.2022 and decree signed on 22.12.2022 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-1, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur approached this Court by filing the instant appeal. 25. Although the appeal is against the denial of decree of divorce but it appears from the order dated 11.06.2025 that the parties have refused to live together as husband and wife on the endeavour having been taken by this Court. 26. Such endeavour has been taken by this Court on the principle that the efforts for reunion is to be taken first but if the efforts of reunion is not found to be possible, then the other possibility of settlement is to be considered. 27. The appellant-husband has expressed his wish that he is not ready to keep the wife due to so may problems which he has faced. 28. However, the wife has expressed her wish that so far as her personal opinion is concerned, she is ready to live with her husband but her daughter is not willing to live with her father due to reason that he has never taken care of her even though she was seriously ill and being treated by the doctor. 29. The appellant-husband has submitted that he is ready for separation on the settlement in terms of money. 30. 29. The appellant-husband has submitted that he is ready for separation on the settlement in terms of money. 30. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid fact, has passed order on 11.06.2025 directing the learned counsel for the appellant-husband to file affidavit giving details of the salary/perks of the appellant-husband along with the salary-slip as also the documents pertaining to his immovable property. For ready reference, the order dated 11.06.2025 is being quoted hereunder as :- “ Order No.10/Dated: 11 th June, 2025 1. Reference may be made to the order dated 1st May 2025. 2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that due to transfer of the appellant from Jamshedpur to Mumbai he could not be able to present in this Court. 3. The respondent-wife, namely, Manasi Ray is present in the Court along with her minor daughter, namely, Adrisa Ray aged about 11 years. She has submitted that so far as her personal opinion is concerned, she is ready to live with her husband but her daughter is not willing to live with her father due to reason that he has never taken care of her even through she was seriously ill and being treated by the doctor and to that effect the prescriptions have been shown to this Court. The respondent-wife has, therefore, submitted that in such a situation where the future of her daughter is at stake as she is not willing to live with her father and for that reason, she is also not willing to go against the wishes of her daughter and, hence, she does not want to live with her husband. 4. She has further stated that the appellant is working in a subsidiary company of TATA Steel Ltd. and he is getting a handsome salary, approximately Rs.2.5 lakhs per month and, as such, a statement has been made that for the purpose of upbringing of the minor daughter, both for better education and treatment as also for the settlement upto the stage of her marriage and for her survival the appropriate amount, if will be paid, then she can come to the terms of separation. 5. The respondent-wife has further submitted that the appellant has not paid the maintenance amount and an arrear to the tune of Rs.74,000/- is still pending to be paid by the appellant. 5. The respondent-wife has further submitted that the appellant has not paid the maintenance amount and an arrear to the tune of Rs.74,000/- is still pending to be paid by the appellant. The respondent- wife has further submitted that she has to come from Adra and today she is hiring a vehicle to come to the Court by road and for this purpose, she has to bear an amount of Rs.10,000/- for to and fro journey. 6. Upon this, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has undertaken on behalf of the appellant to transmit the said amount in the account of the respondent-wife within a week. He has submitted that he will take instructions and file an affidavit in this regard stating therein the entire income of the appellant based upon his salary and other properties by appending the salary-slip which is being issued by the employer of the appellant and the documents pertaining to his immovable property. 7. The learned counsel has further submitted that in the affidavit specific statement regarding the amount paid to the respondent-wife for expenses of to and fro journey will also be mentioned. So far as the payment of arrear of maintenance amount is concerned, he has stated that he will take instructions from the appellant and if the said maintenance amount is still due, the same will be paid within a period of four weeks. 8. Let such affidavit be filed giving details of the salary/perks of the appellant-husband along with the salary-slip as also the documents pertaining to his immovable property. 9. The parties are at liberty to appear in the Court through Virtual Mode for which the link will be provided by the Registry of this Court by intimating both the parties and their learned counsel. 10. Let this matter be posted on 26.06.2025.” 31. The affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant- husband annexing therewith the salary slip for the month of May, 2025 showing the details of the salary which he is earning since he is working as Assistant General Manager in Tata Steel Limited. The salary slip refers projected income tax wherein the annual income from salary has been shown to the tune of Rs.20,26,422/- out of which income tax to the tune of Rs.2,14,870/- is to be deducted. 32. The salary slip refers projected income tax wherein the annual income from salary has been shown to the tune of Rs.20,26,422/- out of which income tax to the tune of Rs.2,14,870/- is to be deducted. 32. The appellant is also having a house at Durgapur town taken on long term lease from Durgapur Steel Plant, however, in the name of his father as has been stated in the said affidavit. 33. The respondent-wife has submitted that the daughter is suffering from “Congenital Vertical Talus” disease for which the treatment is going on for which she is facing great hardship, both monetarily and lack of medical facilities in the town where she is now residing, i.e., Bankura, in the district of Burdwan, having no advance medical facility for the expert treatment which is required for the daughter. 34. She, therefore, has stated that since the appellant husband is not ready to live and he wants divorce, as such, she has shown her willingness based upon her requirement and the needs of her daughter for maintaining her, studies and the treatment. 35. Upon this, the appellant-husband has stated before this Court that he is ready to make payment of Rs.40 lacs in favour of the respondent-wife and Rs.10 lacs for the daughter to be deposited in the long term deposit plan in any bank which shall be under the guardianship of the respondent-wife. 36. The respondent-wife has stated that although the amount agreed to be paid by the appellant-husband cannot be said to be sufficient one but since she is in dire need of money for her survival and the wellbeing of her daughter, as such, she is accepting the said offer. 37. She has further stated that the amount of maintenance which has been directed to be paid in favour of the daughter to the tune of Rs.6,000/- may be enhanced with a direction to be paid by the appellant-husband towards his daughter positively by 10th of each month. 38. She has also stated that since her daughter requires better treatment and the appellant-husband is having the residential house, although on long term lease, hence it would be just and proper for the welfare of the daughter for whom the accountability also lies with the appellant- husband until she attains her majority and have a proper settlement either by way of getting a job or by solemnization of her marriage. Otherwise, she will face difficulty in getting proper treatment due to want of any residential accommodation in the district of Durgapur which is nearer to the place where now she is living and where there is better facilities at least for the medical treatment of her daughter as also for her good studies. 39. This Court has considered the statements which have been made by the parties themselves. 40. The decree of divorce has been refused to be granted, but this Court, taking into consideration the fact that there is no possibility of reconciliation on the issue of reunion, hence, has though it proper to accept the agreement which has been arrived at in between the parties. 41. So far, the lump sum amount of Rs.50 lacs (Rs.40 lacs to the respondent-wife and Rs.10 lacs to the daughter) is concerned, this Court is of the view that the matter, in terms of the said settlement, is required to be closed by modifying the decree passed by the learned Family Judge by granting decree of divorce in between the parties. However, subject to the following conditions:- (i) Rs. 40 lacs are to be paid by the appellant-husband in favour of the respondent wife. (ii) Rs.40 lacs, as has been agreed by the appellant-husband, shall be paid in four installments, by way of demand draft, within a maximum period of four months from today. (iii) The first installment of Rs.10 lacs is to be paid by 15th August, 2025 through demand draft in the name of Manasi Ray, the respondent-wife. (iv) Thereafter, rest Rs.30 lacs shall be paid in three equal installments within maximum period of three months from 15 th August, 2025. (v) Rs.10 lacs, as agreed to be paid in favour of the daughter, will be transmitted in the bank account of the respondent-wife within a period of 15 days from the date of order. The respondent wife, immediately after receipt of the said amount, shall deposit the same in the long-term deposit scheme in any of the nationalized bank, in the name of the daughter under the guardianship of the mother, the respondent-wife herein. Issue of maintenance of the daughter 42. This Court is dealing with the issue of dissolution of marriage in between the husband and the wife under the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 43. Issue of maintenance of the daughter 42. This Court is dealing with the issue of dissolution of marriage in between the husband and the wife under the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 43. The agreement which has been arrived, as referred hereinabove, if for dissolution of marriage in between the appellant and the respondent, the interest of the female child (daughter) is also subject matter for consideration out of the wedlock of the husband and wife, will suffer due to the effect of dissolution of marriage. Therefore, the question of welfare of kids, herein the female child, is required to be considered. 44. The aforesaid aspect of the matter is also necessary to be looked into by this Court since the age of the female child is 11 years only and she is suffering from “Congenital Vertical Talus” disease. However, the maintenance amount for daughter has been granted by the concerned Family Court which is being paid by the father to the tune of Rs.6000/- per month. 45. The father-appellant has admitted before this Court that there cannot be any separation from the daughter, rather, he is duty bound to maintain his daughter, in addition to the amount of Rs.10 lacs which has been agreed to be paid for her future avenues. 46. This Court, considering the aforesaid admission on the part of the appellant-husband, is now proceeding to consider whether the amount of Rs.6,000/- per month can be said to be just and proper for the welfare of the daughter, for her study, treatment and other miscellaneous expenditure which a female child requires. 47. The salary of the appellant, as per the salary slip is Rs.1,34,995/- gross approximately per month. He is working in the capacity of Senior Area Manager in Tata Steel Wire, Division . The appellant being the father, has got every duty to nourish, maintain and to discharge his accountability so as to bring his daughter to a responsible position in the society. 48. Since the child has taken birth from the wedlock of the wife and husband is not to be separated, hence, the father has every obligation upon the child to maintain. As per the learned Counsel the amount of Rs.6000/- per month is being paid to child. 49. 48. Since the child has taken birth from the wedlock of the wife and husband is not to be separated, hence, the father has every obligation upon the child to maintain. As per the learned Counsel the amount of Rs.6000/- per month is being paid to child. 49. The Court is to consider as to whether the said amount of Rs.6000/- can be said to be commensurate with the requirement of a female child who, at the time of awarding the said amount was aged about 5/6 years and now aged about 11 years. 50. We all know that a kid, particularly a female child, is in requirement of financial means for her study, upbringing, higher studies and solemnization of marriage. The amount of Rs.6000/- per month, therefore, cannot be said to be commensurate with the said requirement, particularly in a case where the appellant is getting salary of approximately Rs.1,35,000/- per month, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259]. 51. This Court has considered the factual aspect of the said case i.e. Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukhan(supra) and on perusal of the fact, referred therein, it is evident that the appellant-wife and respondent- husband were married on 18.06.1997. A son was born to them on 05.08.1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the appellant-wife. 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. 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. The appellant-wife then instituted Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial vide Court, 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 vide costs. The Trial Court, order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that the respondent- husband had failed to prove cruelty. The Trial vide Court, 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 vide costs. The Trial Court, 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. 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. The High Court, by order dated 14.05.2015, directed the respondent-husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. 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. 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 redeem the mortgage on the flat where the appellant-wife was residing and transfer the title deed to her name by 31.08.2019; allow the appellant-wife and their son to continue residing in the said flat; and 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. 52. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the appellant-wife is approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. 53. The Hon’ble Apex Court, by interim order dated 07.11.2023, 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. 54. 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. 55. 54. 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. 55. 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. 56. The Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court has come to the conclusion that it requires revision. The said revision is on the basis of the respondent-husband’s income, financial disclosures, and past earnings which establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that 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. It has also been observed, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount. 57. Therefore, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. The said amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, the Hon’ble Apex Court has expressed its view that the Court is 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. The said amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, the Hon’ble Apex Court has expressed its view that the Court is 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. It has been clarified that that the son’s right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law. 58. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court was 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, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the said order is being quoted as under: “7. Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High 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.” 59. 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.” 59. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that 30% of the salary of the appellant of the said case was awarded to be paid in favour of the wife. However, no alimony was directed to be paid in favour of the son since he was 26 years of age but the Hon’ble Apex Court has made an observation that giving monetary aid to the said son is being left open upon the father. 60. Here, in the instant case, the daughter is aged about 11 years. 30% of Rs.1,35000/- is required to be assessed by this Court on the basis of the consideration made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case which comes to nearabout Rs.45,000/- but this Court is not awarding the amount by enhancing it from Rs.6000/- to Rs.45,000/- due to the reason that lump sum amount of Rs.50 lacs is to be paid by the appellant in favour of the respondent-wife which also includes Rs.10 lacs for the welfare of the daughter. 61. Hence, we considering the fact that the appellant is also not to be overburdened, are of the view that the amount of Rs.6,000/- per month cannot be said to be a just and proper amount, rather, the same is required to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per month which shall be paid to the account of the respondent (mother of the daughter) by 10 th of each month. 62. The said arrangement of depositing the amount in the account of the respondent (mother of the daughter) will be till attaining the majority of the daughter and, thereafter, the said amount will be deposited directly in the account of the daughter which shall be opened by her mother after the daughter attains majority. 63. The Rs.20,000/- will be enhanced to the extent of 5% after every two years. 64. 63. The Rs.20,000/- will be enhanced to the extent of 5% after every two years. 64. The statement which has been made by the respondent regarding the issue of residential accommodation for the purpose of imparting higher studies which is not available in Bankura, rather, available in Durgapur as also for the medical treatment of her daughter who requires it on daily basis, i.e., physiotherapy and all types of expert treatment. 65. This Court, considering that the daughter is facing medical difficulty of “Congenital Vertical Talus” disease, is of the view that what is being said by the respondent cannot be disagreed to, reason being that the Durgapur Township is having better medical facility being the steel town, industrial in nature, as has been told by the learned counsel for the parties and, as such, this aspect of the matter cannot be ignored by this Court, otherwise, the same will lead to irreparable loss to the wellbeing of the daughter, so far as study and specially the treatment which is required to strengthen the daughter physically. 66. The respondent, being a lady, if will not be allowed to live in the house situated in Durgapur Township, then it will not be practicable for the respondent-wife to carry her daughter alone for getting her treated in Durgapur. 67. The father, appellant herein, cannot be allowed to shift his accountability/responsibility towards his daughter, which he is required to do as a father, in the garb of getting divorce from the respondent-wife. 68. The father, being the natural guardian, has got every responsibility till the minor attains majority or minor being settled. This is more important so far as the female child is concerned. 69. The fact about having residential house in Durgapur is admitted one as per the affidavit dated 03.07.2025. However, it has been stated therein that the said house is on long term lease. The respondent is not willing to have the said accommodation forever, rather, what she has expressed is not for a permanent period, rather, up till the settlement of the daughter. However, it has been stated therein that the said house is on long term lease. The respondent is not willing to have the said accommodation forever, rather, what she has expressed is not for a permanent period, rather, up till the settlement of the daughter. Even considering the aforesaid fact that the respondent is not willing to have the residential accommodation till the subsistence of the lease or any right over the property both the property of the father and the ancestral property but the right of the daughter cannot be separable merely because the divorce has been granted by separating the mother and father, rather, the right to inherit the property will always be there in favour of the son(s) or the daughter(s), as the case may be, under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 70. This Court, therefore, is of the view, considering the issue which the daughter is facing and for getting treatment of the daughter the respondent will also have the practical difficulties, hence, the right to live in the residential house at Durgapur is required to be there. 71. This Court, in view of the above, is of the view that whenever the respondent will show her desire to have the keys of the house being 6/39, Kanishka Road of SAIL Township at Durgapur to the appellant, the keys of the said quarter or the vacant possession of the said quarter shall be handed over in her favour for the aforesaid purpose. However, the said occupation will be till the period of settlement or solemnization of the marriage of the daughter making it clear that does not construe of extinguishment of the right of inheritance of the daughter over the property of his father or the ancestral property. 72. The respondent has also stated that one account has been opened under the Sukanya Samriddhi Scheme for which Rs.20,000/- has been deposited. But the passbook of the said account is lying with the appellant, hence, he may be directed to return the said passbook for the purpose of continuing the said scheme which will be beneficial for her daughter in future. 73. Upon this, the appellant has undertaken before this Court that the passbook of Sukanya Samriddhi Scheme shall be handed over to his counsel Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur within ten days, who after receiving the same, shall handover to Mr. 73. Upon this, the appellant has undertaken before this Court that the passbook of Sukanya Samriddhi Scheme shall be handed over to his counsel Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur within ten days, who after receiving the same, shall handover to Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel for the respondent, who will handover the same to the respondent immediately. 74. This Court further needs to refer herein that in case any of the order will not be adhered to by the appellant, the respondent will be at liberty to make appropriate application before this Court. 75. With these observations and directions, the instant appeal is allowed. 76. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. I agree. (Rajesh Kumar, J.)