“Beyond Subsistence” – The Jharkhand High Court Mandates Progressive, Indexed Maintenance where a Child with Autism is Involved

1. Introduction

In Susmita Prasad v. Raju Prasad (F.A. No. 141 of 2023, decided 19-06-2025) the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court revisited the quantum and structure of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”). Confronted with a mother who is the sole, full-time caregiver of an 11-year-old child diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), the Court elevated maintenance from a lump–sum of ₹12 lakhs to a dynamic monthly regime of ₹50,000 for the wife and ₹40,000 for the child, with an automatic 5 % biennial escalation.

The judgment is path-breaking on three counts:

1. It recognises autism-related expenses (therapy, special schooling, continuous care) as a decisive factor in alimony assessment.
2. It affirms that a caregiver-parent’s “potential employability” cannot dilute the obligation of the financially stronger spouse.
3. It introduces a garnishee-like mechanism enabling direct deduction from the husband’s employer upon default.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Family Court had dissolved the marriage and awarded a lump-sum permanent alimony of ₹12 lakhs to the wife, keeping intact an earlier order of ₹8,000 p.m. towards the child’s maintenance.
• Observing these figures were “meagre”, the High Court:
  • Granted the wife ₹50,000 per month.
  • Granted the autistic son ₹40,000 per month.
  • Directed a 5 % increment every two years to offset inflation.
  • Authorised the wife to approach the husband’s employer for direct disbursal if he defaults by the 10^th of any month.
• The Bench relied on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence (notably RAKHI SADHUKHAN v. RAJA SADHUKHAN, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259) and statutory parameters under Section 25 HMA.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – provided the holistic checklist for maintenance (status, needs, capacity, inflation). The High Court borrows this matrix to rebut the “she is employable” argument.
2. Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112 – reiterated that maintenance must allow the spouse to live with “reasonable comfort” proportional to earlier marital standards. Relied on to emphasise quality of life, not bare survival.
3. U. Sree v. U. Srinivas (2013) 2 SCC 114 – held that no arithmetic formula exists, but courts must consider social status and inflation; used for rejecting the static lump-sum.
4. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017) 14 SCC 200 – cited for the power under S.25(2) HMA to vary maintenance when circumstances change.
5. RAKHI SADHUKHAN v. RAJA SADHUKHAN (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259) – the most significant. It approved ₹50k p.m. for a wife, with 5 % biennial rise, when husband’s take-home was ₹1.64 lakh. The Jharkhand Court analogised, but granted an additional ₹40k p.m. for the autistic child because the father’s take-home here was higher (₹2.31 lakh) and the child’s disability required lifelong expenditure.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning traversed three prongs:

1. Statutory Anchor (Section 25 HMA) – The Bench underscored that permanent alimony aims to prevent destitution, not reward or punish. The “circumstances of the case” now mandatorily include special-needs expenditure.
2. Fact-based Assessment of Means and Needs
   • Respondent’s net salary: ₹2.31 lakhs p.m. plus joint ownership of Mumbai flat.
   • Child’s recurring costs: occupational therapy, speech therapy, specialised schooling, dietary and medical bills approximated at ≥ ₹53k p.m.
   • Appellant’s inability to earn: 24×7 caregiving for an autistic minor; age 40; no regular employment.
3. Design of the Relief
   • Monthly not Lump-Sum – Reflects the father’s own preference and spreads support over the child’s minority/adulthood.
   • Indexed Escalation – Auto-correction for inflation, echoing SC practice.
   • Employer-triggered Execution – A quasi-garnishee device ensuring compliance without repeated litigation.

3.3 Likely Impact

• Disability-responsive Maintenance – Trial and appellate courts nationwide may now treat ASD and comparable neuro-divergent conditions as a compelling head of expense, prompting higher and indexed maintenance.
• Caregiver Doctrine – The judgment crystallises the principle that a parent who is the sole caregiver of a special-needs child cannot be expected simultaneously to generate substantial external income.
• Enforcement Innovation – By inviting garnishment from the employer, the Court offers a template for swift enforcement that could influence execution practice under matrimonial and domestic violence laws.
• Quantum Benchmarking – ₹50k/₹40k p.m. (with 5% index) becomes a reference point where the paying spouse’s net monthly income is around ₹2–2.5 lakh.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Permanent Alimony v. Interim Maintenance

• Interim Maintenance (S.24 HMA / S.125 CrPC): Temporary support during litigation.
• Permanent Alimony (S.25 HMA): Final support order, either lump-sum or periodic, surviving even after divorce decree.

4.2 Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

• Neurological developmental condition affecting communication, social interaction and behaviour.
• Requires multi-disciplinary interventions: speech therapy, occupational therapy, special education, and may involve lifelong support.
• Incurs higher recurring costs than typical child-rearing.

4.3 Garnishee-like Direction

Courts can direct the debtor’s employer (a third party) to deduct and remit maintenance directly to the claimant – a faster alternative to contempt proceedings or attachment of property.

5. Conclusion

The Jharkhand High Court has set a significant precedent by weaving disability sensitivity, caregiver realities, and pragmatic enforcement into the fabric of maintenance jurisprudence. The ruling realigns Section 25 HMA with contemporary social demands, ensuring that maintenance is commensurate with genuine needs, not frozen in outdated arithmetic. Going forward, family courts are likely to:

• Undertake granular scrutiny of special-needs expenditure.
• Resist “potential employability” as a basis to undercut maintenance for sole caregivers.
• Incorporate escalation clauses to neutralise inflation.
• Invoke employer deduction routes for efficient execution.

Ultimately, Susmita Prasad v. Raju Prasad advances a humane, realistic approach to marital breakdown, reminding us that the law’s compassion must keep pace with the complexities of modern family life.