Permanent alimony is sustainable when grounded in financial capacity and the dependent spouse’s reasonable needs.

The appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married on 26 November 2015 according to Hindu rites and customs, and they had a son born on 27 August 2016.

The husband alleged that the wife subjected him and his family to cruelty, insisted on separate residence from his parents, threatened him, refused matrimonial cohabitation, and subsequently developed an illicit relationship with another person.

The wife denied these allegations and contended that she had been neglected during pregnancy and had lived with the husband at Bokaro until 13 June 2018.

The husband instituted Original Suit No. 256 of 2018 seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Family Court, Bokaro allowed the divorce petition on the ground of cruelty, but directed the husband to pay ₹8,00,000 to the wife towards future maintenance and one-time permanent alimony, in three instalments within three months.

The present appeal was confined to the direction awarding ₹8,00,000 as maintenance and permanent alimony.

1. Whether the Family Court was justified in directing the appellant-husband to pay ₹8,00,000 to the respondent-wife towards future maintenance and one-time permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

2. Whether the amount awarded was irrational, perverse, or unsupported by the parties’ financial circumstances so as to warrant interference in first appeal?

The Court applied Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which empowers a matrimonial court, at the time of passing a decree or subsequently upon an application, to award a gross, monthly, or periodical sum for maintenance and support after considering the respondent’s income and property, the applicant’s income and property, the conduct of the parties, and other circumstances.

Under Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, Section 25 is an enabling provision and an order may be varied, modified, or rescinded upon a change in circumstances.

Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar and U. Sree v. U. Srinivas establish that there is no fixed mathematical formula; the court must consider the parties’ status, needs, earning capacity, financial obligations, and standard of living.

Under Rajnesh v. Neha, maintenance is intended to prevent destitution and must be reasonable and realistic, after considering the wife’s needs, independent income, qualifications, employment history, dependent children, and the husband’s actual income, liabilities, and capacity to pay.

The Court also relied on Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel and Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain regarding assessment of actual or reasonably assessable income and the need for a fair, proportionate award.

A finding is “perverse” only where it is unsupported by evidence, based on irrelevant considerations, or so irrational that no reasonable judicial body could have reached it.

The Court held that permanent alimony could properly be awarded while passing the decree of divorce and that the relevant consideration was whether the wife lacked sufficient independent income for her maintenance.

The record showed that the wife had no independent source of income and was required to maintain herself and care for the minor son.

The Family Court had already assessed the husband’s financial position, including his employment as an ad hoc employee with Nagar Nigam, Chas, earning approximately ₹20,000 per month, and had earlier granted the wife ₹3,000 per month as maintenance pendente lite under Section 24.

On that evidentiary foundation, the direction to pay ₹8,00,000 was found to reflect consideration of the husband’s capacity and the wife’s financial hardship.

The appellant’s contention that the wife was not interested in relief did not establish that the award was legally impermissible or perverse.

Since the amount was based on relevant financial and familial circumstances and did not meet the high threshold of perversity, appellate interference was unwarranted.

It held that the Family Court was justified in awarding ₹8,00,000 to the respondent-wife as future maintenance and one-time permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that the award was neither irrational nor perverse.

The appeal was dismissed, the direction for payment in three instalments was left undisturbed, and any pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.