Patna High Court Appoints Special Officer To Verify Husband's Assets Amid Wife's Dispute Over Income, Awards ₹50 Lakh Alimony

The Patna HC has held that where there is a substantial dispute between the parties regarding the husband's assets and income, the Court can appoint a Special Officer to ascertain the extent of his property while determining the wife's entitlement to permanent alimony.

A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh was hearing a matrimonial appeal against the dismissal of the appellant-wife's divorce petition by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna.

The parties were married on 24.01.2010 according to Christian rites and ceremonies at a church in Patliputra Colony, Patna. The wife alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and left the matrimonial home on 10.03.2010.

The High Court first noted that the Family Court had considered the divorce petition under Section 10(1) of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. The Bench held that the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 did not govern dissolution of marriage between Christian couples in India and that the Divorce Act, 1869 was the applicable statute. The Court observed that it was “unfortunate” that the Additional Principal Judge had passed the order without verifying the statute applicable to the dispute, describing this as “sheer negligence” on the part of the Trial Judge. The High Court accordingly set aside the dismissal of the divorce petition and granted the appellant a decree of divorce.

The Court thereafter considered the question of permanent alimony. The wife had filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities stating that she was dependent upon her parental home and had monthly expenditure of approximately ₹40,450. She also stated that she was receiving maintenance of ₹10,000 per month pursuant to an earlier order.

The wife claimed that the husband owned an X-ray clinic, a surgical-items shop, a doctors' clinic, a school and a real-estate business, besides practising as an advocate and working as a marketing consultant. She further claimed that he owned a house in Patliputra Colony and had no liabilities. The husband, on the other hand, disclosed total income of ₹1,73,740 for the assessment year 2025-26 and rental income of ₹2,48,000, taking his total disclosed income to ₹4,21,740.

Noting the substantial difference between the parties' claims regarding the husband's assets and liabilities, the Bench decided to appoint a Special Officer to ascertain the extent of property owned by him. The Special Officer submitted his report on 30.09.2026. On the basis of the report, the Court found that, apart from the husband's declared income and rental income, he was the owner of property worth approximately ₹4 crore. The Court observed:

“Thus, beside the above declared income and rental income, the respondent is the owner of property worth Rs. 4 crores. Therefore, the respondent is a man of substance.”

Considering the wife's stated monthly expenditure of ₹40,450 and the husband's financial position, the Court held that the husband was liable to pay ₹50 lakh towards permanent alimony.

The Court directed that the amount be paid within three months. It further directed that upon payment of the permanent alimony, the husband would not be required to pay the existing maintenance allowance and that pending cases between the parties arising out of their matrimonial relationship would be dropped by the concerned courts.

Appearance:

For the Appellant/s: Mr. Sagar Suman, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Rohitabh Das, Advocate