Court cannot grant suo motu permanent alimony in mutual divorce cases when parties specifically waive such claims.

The appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) married in 1996 and had two children

Following domestic disputes and a case filed under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the parties entered into a settlement to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

In their joint petition and supporting affidavits before the Trial Court, both parties explicitly averred that they would not raise any demand for interim maintenance or permanent alimony

On 03.06.2023, the District Judge, Sivasagar, granted the divorce but suo motu directed the appellant to pay ₹10,00,000 as permanent alimony to the respondent

The appellant challenged this specific direction before the Gauhati High Court

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in granting permanent alimony suo motu in a decree of divorce by mutual consent when both parties had specifically waived such claims in their pleadings and affidavits

2. Whether the conduct of the respondent, specifically an alleged admission of an illicit relationship, affects the entitlement to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act

Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which governs permanent alimony and maintenance. The provision dictates that alimony is granted "on application made to it for the purpose" and requires the court to have regard for the income of both parties, the conduct of the parties, and other circumstances

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) regarding the impact of conduct on civil rights following the decriminalization of adultery

The High Court observed that Section 25 explicitly requires an "application" for the grant of alimony. While noting that an oral application might suffice in appropriate cases, the court highlighted that in this instance, there was a categorical written agreement and joint affidavit stating neither party would seek alimony

The Trial Court’s justification—"considering the entirety of facts and future of petitioner No. 2"—was deemed insufficient to override the express waiver by the parties

The Court noted that under Section 25, the "conduct of the parties" must be considered; the respondent's admission of an illicit affair, coupled with the absence of a claim for alimony, rendered the suo motu direction unjustified

The Court held that a Trial Court cannot impose alimony in a mutual consent divorce if the parties have mutually and specifically agreed to forego it

The Court set aside the direction regarding the payment of alimony while keeping the decree of dissolution of marriage intact