Karnataka High CourtFamily LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Wife’s Permanent Alimony Raised To ₹15 Lakh As Karnataka HC Upholds Divorce After She Refused To Rejoin Husband

PRIYAv.BASAVARAJ

Wife’s Permanent Alimony Raised To ₹15 Lakh As Karnataka HC Upholds Divorce After She Refused To Rejoin Husband. PRIYA vs BASAVARAJ. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Family Court’s judgment and decree were arbitrary or perverse

The court held

The wife’s appeal was allowed in part and the husband’s appeal was dismissed. The divorce decree was otherwise maintained, but the permanent-alimony award was enhanced from ₹4,00,000 to ₹15,00,000.

It also directed

The husband was directed to deposit the amount within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order; the Court stated that, on default, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the Family Court’s judgment.

01Facts

The husband petitioned for divorce under Section 13(1)(i), (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion. The wife denied the allegations and stated that she had been made to live and work in difficult conditions at the husband’s village. The Family Court dissolved the marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion and awarded the wife permanent alimony of ₹4,00,000.

pp. 3–7

The wife appealed the divorce decree and sought enhancement of alimony; the husband appealed the alimony award.

pp. 7–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Family Court’s judgment and decree were arbitrary or perverse

¶ 9 · p. 9

ii.2. Whether the award of ₹4,00,000 as permanent alimony should be set aside or enhanced

¶ 7, 16 · p. 8, 12

03Law Applied

The husband’s divorce petition invoked Section 13(1)(i), (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, concerning the statutory grounds pleaded for dissolution of marriage.

¶ 3.1 · p. 3

The appeals were brought under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act.

pp. 2–3

The judgment cited no precedent and did not identify a statutory provision governing permanent alimony; it assessed the award by reference to the parties’ circumstances, including the husband’s agricultural occupation and landholding.

¶ 16 · p. 12

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13

04Reasoning

The High Court found no basis to disturb the Family Court’s decision to dissolve the marriage. It noted the wife’s admission that she had lived separately for about six years and her testimony that she was unwilling to resume cohabitation; it also considered the husband’s evidence that he had made a house at Vijayapura and was willing to live with her and their child.

¶ 11–15 · pp. 9–12

On alimony, the Court considered the existing award of ₹4,00,000 inadequate in light of the husband’s status as an agriculturist with agricultural lands and fixed permanent alimony at ₹15,00,000.

¶ 16 · p. 12

05Holding

The wife’s appeal was allowed in part and the husband’s appeal was dismissed. The divorce decree was otherwise maintained, but the permanent-alimony award was enhanced from ₹4,00,000 to ₹15,00,000.

¶ 17 · p. 13

The husband was directed to deposit the amount within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order; the Court stated that, on default, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the Family Court’s judgment.

¶ 17 · p. 13
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

PRIYAvsBASAVARAJ

Karnataka High Court · September 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment