Permanent Alimony Enhanced Based on Husband’s Current Salary and Multiplier to Ensure Dignified Living Standard

In brief

The question

1. Whether the 1st Appellate Court, while confirming the decree of divorce, was right in awarding permanent lump sum alimony of ₹7.5 Lakhs, or if the amount is inadequate based on the evidence on record?

The court held

The Court answered the issue in the negative, finding the original award of ₹7.5 Lakhs inadequate

It also directed

The High Court allowed the appeal and modified the 1st Appellate Court's decree, enhancing the permanent alimony from ₹7.5 Lakhs to ₹23 Lakhs and directed the Respondent/Husband to pay the enhanced amount within three months, after deducting any sums already paid

01Facts

The Appellant (wife) and Respondent (husband) were married and subsequently litigants in a divorce proceeding initiated by the husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

pp. 1-2

The Trial Court granted a decree of divorce, which was confirmed by the 1st Appellate Court in MAT Appeal No. 01/98 of 2012/2013

p. 2

While confirming divorce, the 1st Appellate Court directed the husband to pay ₹7.5 Lakhs as lump-sum permanent alimony to the wife and ₹1,000 per month for their minor son

p. 3

The wife filed this second appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of the permanent alimony to ₹15 Lakhs on the grounds of inadequacy

p. 3

During pendency, the Court sought updated financial records, revealing the husband's gross monthly salary as a Government Teacher is ₹1,00,764 and the wife’s honorarium as an Anganwadi worker is ₹10,000

pp. 4-5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the 1st Appellate Court, while confirming the decree of divorce, was right in awarding permanent lump sum alimony of ₹7.5 Lakhs, or if the amount is inadequate based on the evidence on record?

p. 3

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, regarding permanent alimony and maintenance

p. 6

It relied on Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy [2017 (1) CLR (S.C.) 1099] and Dr. Kulbhusan Kumar v. Smt. Raj Kumari [1970 (3) SCC 129], establishing that 25% of the husband’s net salary is a just and proper benchmark for maintenance

p. 7

The court applied the "multiplier" principle for calculating lump-sum alimony as seen in Jyoti Sankar Panda v. Jyotirmayee Dash [2022 (3) CCC 42 (Orissa)], which emphasizes the status of parties and financial capacity

p. 8

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13 Section 25

04Reasoning

The Court determined that permanent alimony cannot be fixed by a mathematical formula but must ensure the wife lives with dignity

pp. 5-6

Upon reviewing the husband's pay slip, the Court calculated his effective monthly income at ₹1,00,764, noting that non-statutory deductions like LIC and voluntary advances cannot reduce the base for maintenance

p. 5, 9

Applying the 25% rule, the wife’s entitlement was calculated at ₹25,191 per month. After deducting her own earnings of ₹10,000, the net deficiency was ₹15,191 per month (₹1,82,292 annually)

p. 10

Given the parties' ages (Husband 53, Wife 42), the Court applied a multiplier of 13, resulting in a total of ₹23,69,796

p. 10

The Court observed that although the wife only prayed for ₹15 Lakhs, the Court’s power is not restricted by her specific claim if the law justifies a higher amount to maintain her status

p. 11