Permanent alimony must reflect proven needs and paying capacity; unsupported quantum cannot stand.

The parties married on 23 May 2014 according to Hindu rites and customs. The appellant-husband instituted proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”), seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The marriage was dissolved ex parte by decree dated 15 May 2019.

Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 25 HMA seeking permanent alimony of ₹30 lakhs.

The wife asserted that the husband was a CRPF employee earning approximately ₹59,745–₹64,685 per month, had income from agricultural land, and possessed other assets; she claimed that she had no independent income.

The husband relied on his salary and liabilities, including monthly EMI deductions of ₹26,000, and stated that he had remarried, had a four-year-old child, and was maintaining his mother.

The Family Court directed him to pay ₹20 lakhs as permanent alimony without explaining how that amount had been calculated. The husband appealed against that order.

Whether the Family Court correctly determined the respondent-wife’s entitlement to permanent alimony under Section 25 HMA at ₹20 lakhs, having regard to the parties’ status, needs, income, liabilities and circumstances.

Whether, in view of the husband’s remarriage, child from the second marriage, alleged EMI obligations and the absence of clear evidence regarding his land income, the permanent alimony should be reduced.

The Court applied Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which empowers the court to award permanent alimony after considering the parties’ respective incomes, property, conduct, circumstances and reasonable needs.

It relied on Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7, and Mangat Mal v. Punni Devi, (1995) 6 SCC 88, for the principle that maintenance must be assessed with reference to the parties’ status, the claimant’s reasonable needs, and the paying spouse’s capacity after accounting for reasonable maintenance expenses; it should enable the wife to live in reasonable comfort consistent with the status and mode of life enjoyed during the marriage.

The amount must also be supported by a rational assessment of the evidence and relevant financial circumstances.

The High Court found that the Family Court had not disclosed the basis for fixing permanent alimony at ₹20 lakhs.

The evidence regarding the husband’s income from land was inconsistent and unsubstantiated, while the duration and nature of his alleged EMI liabilities were unclear.

The Court also considered that the wife was residing in the house of the husband’s mother, that the parties had no children from their marriage, and that the husband had subsequently remarried and had a child.

Balancing the wife’s entitlement to reasonable financial support against the husband’s present family responsibilities, income and liabilities, the Court held that ₹20 lakhs would impose an excessive burden and reduced the amount to ₹12 lakhs.

Since ₹7,00,000 had already been paid, the husband was directed to deposit the balance ₹5,00,000 before the Family Court within six months from the date of the High Court’s order, for disbursement to the respondent-wife.

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