JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2023 (decree signed on 23.02.2023) passed in Original Suit No. 113 of 2018, by Sri Amitesh Lal, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the respondent herein for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant has been allowed and the respondent has further been directed to make payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the appellant as well as to her daughter. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred in this order as per their status before the learned trial court. 4. The petitioner (respondent herein) had filed a suit under Section 13 (1A) and (1B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , in which, it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent (appellant herein) on 23.05.2014 in accordance with Hindu rituals and customs. The petitioner has made several allegations against the respondent which according to him constituted mental cruelty as well as desertion. 5. The respondent on being noticed, had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations levelled against her has been denied. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication of the suit. I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? II. Whether the petitioner has a valid cause of action? III. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? IV. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuously period of not less than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition? V. Whether the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent? VI. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce? VII. To what other relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled to? 7. The petitioner had examined himself as well as two other witnesses while the respondent had adduced four witnesses on her behalf including herself. 8. VI. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce? VII. To what other relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled to? 7. The petitioner had examined himself as well as two other witnesses while the respondent had adduced four witnesses on her behalf including herself. 8. Vide judgment dated 15.02.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 113 of 2018, the suit preferred by petitioner was decreed and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved with a further direction to the petitioner to make payment of alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondent as well as to her daughter. 9. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2023 passed in Original Suit No. 113 of 2018, the respondent has preferred the present appeal. 10. At the outset, Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (appellant herein) has submitted that he is confining his prayer only with respect to the grant of permanent alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondent and her daughter primarily on account of the fact that the parameters to be considered for grant of permanent alimony has not at all been considered by the learned trial court and in fact there appears to be no justifiable reasons for the learned trial court to come to a conclusion with respect to grant of permanent alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondent and her daughter. 11. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent herein) has submitted that the petitioner is an unemployed person and considering the said fact an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been awarded which the petitioner was all along ready and willing to extend to the respondent. 12. In view of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and since the prayer made in this appeal has been confined only with respect to the grant of permanent alimony to the respondent as well as her daughter which according to the appellant is on the lower side, we have perused Paragraph - 9 of the judgment dated 15.02.2023 which reads as follows:- “Issues I, II, VI and VII:- In view of discussions as aforesaid it s therefore held that the suit is maintainable and petitioner has valid cause of action. At the end of the proceedings in the suit a concerted effort was made to settle the matter between the parties. As such for an amicable settlement a number of mediation sittings were made. The parties principally agreed to have the marriage dissolved provided sufficient financial security was ensured at least for the daughter. Be that as it may, and without going into the details of the mediation efforts it would be suffice to state that the matter remained unsettled due to disagreement over the quantum of alimony. It would be improper to disclose the offers and counter-offers made by the parties and the same would be against the settled principles of dispute resolution. This Court in its wisdom and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the financial status of the parties deems it proper to award an alimony of Rs. 10 Lakhs to the respondent and her daughter. The amount appears to be sufficient for lifetime maintenance and upbringing of the daughter. The petitioner, subject to the above, is accordingly entitled for the relief as claimed. The issues stand decided accordingly in favour of petitioner. The respondent as discussed above shall be entitled for a permanent alimony of Rs. 10 lakhs as one time payment”. 13. On a perusal of the aforesaid the only reasoning which seems to have been mentioned by the learned trial court is that the court had awarded the said amount on its wisdom as well as the financial status of the parties. However, such reasoning would not be sustainable in the eyes of law primarily on account of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 whereby and whereunder, the parameters to be considered for grant of alimony has been laid down and which reads as follows:- “III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance 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. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance 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 VinnyParmvirParmar v. ParmvirParmar, (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, 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. 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. SitaBai, (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. 82. Section 23 of the HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant's own earning or from any other source. 83. 83. Section 20(2) of the DV Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. 84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. SarojHegde [Bharat Hegde v. SarojHegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 : (2007) 140 DLT 16 ] laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance : (SCC OnLine Del para 8) “1. Status of the parties. 2. Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3. The independent income and property of the claimant. 4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain. 5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any. 7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment, etc. of the applicant. 8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant. 9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 11. The amount awarded under Section 125 CrPC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act.” 85. Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove, certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable”. 14. As it has been stated above no consideration has been made with respect to the various facets which are necessary for arriving at a conclusion regarding grant of permanent alimony and even the finding of the learned trial court with respect to consideration of the financial status of the parties does not seem to be backed by any reasons, we, accordingly, set aside that part of the judgment dated 15.02.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 113 of 2018 whereby and whereunder, the appellant herein and her daughter has been awarded a permanent alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 15. We, therefore, remand the matter back to the learned trial Judge to reconsider the issue of permanent alimony only for which the learned trial court is at liberty to take oral and documentary evidence, if necessary. 16. 10,00,000/-. 15. We, therefore, remand the matter back to the learned trial Judge to reconsider the issue of permanent alimony only for which the learned trial court is at liberty to take oral and documentary evidence, if necessary. 16. The aforesaid exercise should be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 17. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.