Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act: Simultaneous award of gross sum and monthly maintenance is impermissible.

The parties are husband and wife whose marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Sakti, on 15.12.2023.

Alongside the divorce, the Family Court awarded the wife a lump sum of ₹8,00,000/- as permanent alimony and an additional monthly maintenance of ₹6,000/- until her remarriage.

Both parties filed cross-appeals: the husband challenged the dual award of both lump sum and monthly maintenance, while the wife sought an enhancement of both amounts.

The husband had already deposited the ₹8,00,000/- alimony amount during the proceedings.

1. Whether the Family Court is legally justified in granting monthly maintenance after having already awarded a gross sum as permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Whether the quantum of permanent alimony can be enhanced by the High Court when no formal application or inquiry was conducted by the trial court.

The Court applied Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which grants courts the discretion to award either a "gross sum" or a "monthly/periodical sum" for maintenance and support, but does not provide for both simultaneously.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Rakesh Malhotra v. Krishna Malhotra (2020) 14 SCC 150, which clarifies that orders under Section 25 have an element of permanency and that modifications must be sought through Sections 25(2) or 25(3) rather than through multiple overlapping remedies.

The court referred to Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) SCC Online SC 903 regarding the procedural requirements and criteria for conducting an inquiry to determine the quantum of maintenance.

The Court analyzed the language of Section 25(1) and determined that while the court has the discretion to choose the mode of payment—periodical or lump sum—it cannot award both at the same time.

The Court held that once the Family Court exercised its power to grant a permanent alimony of ₹8,00,000/-, it was "absolutely unjustified" to further burden the respondent with monthly maintenance.

Regarding the wife's plea for enhancement, the Court noted a procedural lapse: the wife had not filed a formal application for permanent alimony, and the Family Court had failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the financial status of the parties before fixing the amount.

Consequently, the High Court determined it could not modify the quantum directly but must remand the issue for a proper evidentiary inquiry.

The wife was permitted to withdraw the ₹8,00,000/- already deposited by the husband.

The Court granted the wife liberty to file a formal application for the enhancement of the permanent alimony amount.

If filed, the Family Court is directed to conduct an inquiry per Rajnesh v. Neha and decide the matter within four months.

Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.