Permanent alimony must balance the wife’s needs against the husband’s income, liabilities, dependents, and retirement prospects.

The parties married on 21.11.1996 and had a son born on 02.03.1998. They began living separately from 13.08.2009, and their marriage was dissolved by the Family Court on 09.02.2016.

The respondent-wife thereafter sought permanent alimony in Misc. (J) Case No. 196/2018. By judgment dated 11.07.2025, the Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Kamrup (M), directed the appellant-husband to pay her ₹60 lakhs as permanent alimony.

During the appeal, ₹20 lakhs had already been paid and withdrawn by the respondent.

The husband contended that the wife was qualified and employed in a private college, that he was nearing retirement as a Junior Engineer in Oil India Limited, and that he had obligations towards his second wife and other dependants.

The wife disputed her employment and relied on the husband’s income and properties to support the award of ₹60 lakhs.

The parties’ affidavits disclosed the husband’s net monthly income as approximately ₹1.98 lakhs, later assessed from his income-tax records as approximately ₹2.5 lakhs, his ownership of two properties, various liabilities, and responsibility towards his present wife and eight other dependants.

The mediation proceedings failed.

1. Whether the Family Court’s award of ₹60 lakhs as permanent alimony was excessive and required appellate interference, having regard to the parties’ income, assets, liabilities, standard of living, dependants, and future financial circumstances.

2. Whether the respondent-wife’s qualifications, alleged employment, independent income, and the fact that the parties’ son had attained majority justified reduction of the permanent-alimony award.

3. What would constitute a fair, reasonable, and equitable amount of permanent alimony in the circumstances of the parties.

The Court applied the principles governing determination of permanent alimony, including consideration of the parties’ social and financial status, their income and properties, the wife’s reasonable needs and standard of living, qualifications and employment status, independent income or assets, sacrifices made during marriage, litigation expenses, the husband’s financial capacity, liabilities, and obligations towards dependants.

Relying on Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) 13 SCC 66, the Court held that permanent alimony must be fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage; the wife’s earning capacity does not by itself bar maintenance if her income is insufficient to preserve that standard.

The Court also referred to M.V. Leelavathi v. Dr. C.R. Swamy, 2025 9 SCR 178 : 2025 INSC 994, concerning the quantum of permanent alimony, and Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, 2026 INSC 370, for the principle that a husband’s obligation to maintain his wife cannot ordinarily be subordinated to repayment of loans, particularly loans relating to property or housing.

The Court found that the Family Court had awarded ₹60 lakhs without explaining how that figure had been calculated, apart from observing that there was no proof of the wife’s employment.

The respondent’s affidavit showed monthly expenses of approximately ₹50,000 for herself and ₹15,000 for her son, while the husband had been paying ₹20,000 per month; the Court inferred that she had an income of at least approximately ₹30,000 per month.

The son had attained majority and therefore no longer required maintenance, reducing the continuing financial burden relevant to the alimony assessment.

At the same time, the Court considered the husband’s substantial income, tax records, property ownership, and maintenance obligation, and held that his loans could not automatically displace his duty to maintain the respondent.

However, his impending retirement, second marriage, present wife’s infertility-related medical expenses, and responsibility towards eight other dependants justified avoiding an excessive award.

Balancing the wife’s need for financial security against the husband’s income, liabilities, dependants, and reduced earning prospects after retirement, the Court held that ₹40 lakhs was a more realistic and equitable amount.

Any amount already paid by the husband, including the ₹20 lakhs paid during the appeal, was directed to be adjusted against the revised award.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of and the trial court record was directed to be returned.