Determination of Permanent Alimony Must Balance Husband’s Earning Capacity Against Wife’s Long-Term Sustenance and Inflationary Costs

The parties married on April 19, 2014, according to Hindu rites.

The Appellant (husband) alleged that the Respondent (wife) was disrespectful and non-cooperative from the start, eventually deserting the matrimonial home on September 11, 2015, without cause.

Consequently, the Appellant filed Original Suit No. 593 of 2017 under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The Additional Family Court-II, Jamshedpur, dismissed the suit on May 15, 2024, holding that the Appellant failed to prove his claims.

During appellate proceedings, the parties expressed a willingness to settle the matter through permanent alimony rather than contesting the merits of the divorce.

1. Whether the court can determine the quantum of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, during appellate proceedings when parties waive arguments on the merits of the divorce.

2. What constitutes a "just, fair, and reasonable" quantum of permanent alimony considering the husband’s income, future prospects, and the wife's lack of independent resources.

Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which empowers courts to grant permanent alimony based on the income, property, and conduct of the parties to remove financial hardship.

The principle established in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, that maintenance should prevent destitution and maintain the wife's accustomed standard of living, emphasizing that there is no "straitjacket formula".

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017) 14 SCC 200 regarding the court's power to modify alimony based on changed circumstances.

Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259) regarding the necessity of adjusting alimony for inflation and future security.

The Court noted that the Appellant is 35 years old, employed as an LDC/Typist at Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. (UCIL), with a gross monthly salary of approximately ₹65,534 and significant future service years including retiral benefits.

Conversely, the Respondent (30 years old) has no independent income and faces a life expectancy requiring approximately 40 years of financial support.

The Court rejected the Appellant’s plea of financial constraint due to personal loans, noting most were taken after the litigation commenced.

Applying the principles from Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court balanced the husband's capacity to pay and his obligations toward his parents against the wife's right to live with dignity and in a manner reflective of the husband's status.

The Court concluded that a one-time lump-sum payment was preferable to ensure the wife's long-term autonomy and to protect her from inflation.

It directed the Appellant to pay a total sum of ₹40,00,000 (Forty Lakhs) as one-time permanent alimony to the Respondent, payable in three equal installments within 12 months.

The appeal was disposed of with liberty granted to the Respondent to approach the court if the payments are not credited as directed.