Persistent default in awarded maintenance bars modification of permanent alimony on grounds of financial hardship.

The applicant-husband sought modification of the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in FA(MAT) No. 180 of 2023, by which permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 was awarded to the respondent-wife.

Although the application sought waiver of the amount, the applicant’s counsel submitted that, being a labourer, he was unable to pay the amount in one lump sum and requested permission to pay it in instalments.

The respondent submitted that the applicant had paid only ₹8,000 towards the permanent alimony and had also failed to pay the monthly maintenance of ₹5,000 for the preceding five years and six months.

The Division Bench considered the earlier order and the material on record and declined to modify it.

Whether the order dated 06.12.2024 awarding permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to the respondent-wife warranted modification on the ground of the applicant-husband’s alleged financial inability to make payment in a lump sum.

Whether the applicant’s limited payment towards permanent alimony and prolonged non-payment of monthly maintenance justified refusal to exercise the Court’s discretion in his favour.

The Court applied the principle that modification of a previous judicial order is discretionary and requires sufficient grounds.

It further relied on the underlying purpose of permanent alimony—to provide financial support and stability to the spouse in whose favour it is awarded—and held that a plea of financial difficulty, without substantial compliance with the existing order and in the face of prolonged default in maintenance payments, does not constitute a sufficient ground for modification.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the applicant had paid only ₹8,000 out of the awarded ₹5,00,000 and had allegedly failed to pay the monthly maintenance of ₹5,000 for five years and six months.

Since the object of permanent alimony is to secure financial support and stability for the recipient spouse, the applicant’s substantial default defeated that object.

In these circumstances, the plea that he was a labourer and unable to make a lump-sum payment did not justify modifying the earlier order, particularly when there had been no substantial payment towards the liability already imposed.

The application seeking waiver or modification of the ₹5,00,000 permanent alimony was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the applicant.