Permanent alimony must ensure dignified sustenance and long-term financial stability commensurate with the husband's income.

The parties were married on 23.04.1994 and have two adult sons.

The wife (appellant) filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) in 2015, alleging physical and mental cruelty, dowry harassment, and desertion since 2009.

The husband, a Government Medical Officer, denied these allegations, claiming the wife deserted him and that he had been paying interim maintenance.

The Family Court, Jodhpur, via judgment dated 29.08.2025, dissolved the marriage and awarded the wife ₹25,00,000 as permanent alimony.

Both parties filed cross-appeals: the wife sought enhancement to ₹2 crore, citing the husband’s high income, while the husband challenged the amount as excessive, arguing the wife is an advocate with independent earning capacity.

1. Whether the quantum of permanent alimony of ₹25,00,000 awarded by the Family Court was just and adequate under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. Whether the wife’s academic qualifications and the majority of the children disentitle her from seeking enhanced alimony.

3. Whether the husband’s status as a Government Medical Officer and his asset base justify an upward revision of the alimony.

The Court primarily applied Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which empowers the court to grant permanent alimony based on the income/property of the parties and their conduct.

It emphasized the principle that alimony is intended to ensure "dignified sustenance" and long-term financial stability, not merely subsistence.

The Court distinguished the present case from the Delhi High Court precedent in Mat. App. (F.C.) 2/2024, noting that while alimony should not be a tool for "enrichment," it must be proportionate to the husband's financial capacity and the wife's lack of stable independent income.

The Court observed that while the wife is highly qualified (PhD/LLB), there was no evidence of her current stable income, and her physical health issues limited her earning capacity.

Conversely, the husband is a Specialist Government Doctor with a secure monthly salary of approximately ₹2,00,000 and substantial immovable assets.

The Court reasoned that the baseline earning capacity of the husband was high enough to sustain a higher award, even if the wife’s claims of his additional "private practice" income were not strictly proved.

The Court rejected the husband's argument regarding the adult sons, holding that alimony is an independent right of the spouse.

Further, it noted the wife lacks independent residential security, a critical factor in determining alimony.

The Court found the initial ₹25 lakh award inadequate considering inflation, the husband's secure status, and the 15-year duration of the marriage.

The Court enhanced the permanent alimony from ₹25,00,000 to ₹40,00,000 (Rupees Forty Lakhs).

The husband was directed to pay this amount within six months, during which he must continue paying monthly maintenance as previously ordered.

The Court held that this amount provided a balanced, realistic, and equitable cushion for the wife's future security.