Karnataka High Court upholds Rs 15 lakh alimony: ‘Able-bodied husband has to work’

Husband challenged Rs 15 lakh alimony

The couple married on February 5, 2009 and began living separately on May 5, 2009. The man sought divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that his wife refused to discharge matrimonial obligations, insisted on living separately from his parents and frequently quarrelled with him and his parents. He also claimed that she left the matrimonial home without informing him or his parents, and later initiated proceedings alleging harassment and cruelty.

However, the wife disputed the allegations and informed the family court that she had been subjected to physical and verbal abuse by the man and his family and was compelled to live with her parents. She said she had instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, but the husband did not resume cohabitation despite an order.

Justices D K Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan said the family court had considered the husband’s and wife’s financial position, standard of living and responsibilities. (Image enhanced using AI)

The wife further alleged that she was driven out when she was about two months pregnant and that the husband did not care for her during her pregnancy. She gave birth to a boy on December 9, 2009, and alleged that he failed to provide necessary care and support to her and the child.

On March 20, 2024, the family court dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay Rs 15 lakh as permanent alimony. As the wife did not challenge the divorce decree, the high court said it was unnecessary to examine the findings on cruelty or desertion.

The man challenged only the alimony direction, arguing that she had not specifically claimed permanent alimony or produced evidence of her financial requirements. He also claimed that she earned around Rs 30,000 a month and pointed out that he was already paying Rs 15,000 monthly maintenance.

‘Striking a balance’

The high court noted that the man had not produced documentary material establishing that the woman earned Rs 30,000 a month.

Courts determining maintenance or permanent alimony must consider “the financial capacity of the parties, their respective income and assets, liabilities, standard of living, reasonable requirements and the obligations of the spouse who is required to make the payment,” the high court said.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s Rajnesh vs Neha judgment, it said the parties must place their assets and liabilities on record to enable a fair and realistic assessment of their financial circumstances. In this case, neither party had submitted a complete statement of assets and liabilities as per the guidelines.

Addressing the income plea, the bench cited Reema Salkan v Sumer Singh Salkan and Anju Garg and Others v Deepak Kumar Garg and said, “…when the husband is able bodied, he has to work and pay maintenance to his wife.” The court added that it must “strike a just balance between the competing considerations” and arrive at an amount fair to both parties.

Taking note of the fact that the man had been employed with a government undertaking, the court said that the family court had considered the parties’ financial position, standard of living and responsibility towards the child, while awarding Rs 15 lakh to enable the woman to maintain herself with dignity and contribute towards the child’s upbringing.

Finding no sufficient ground to interfere, the high court upheld the Rs 15 lakh permanent alimony award.

Rs 7.5 lakh to be paid

Recording the parties’ agreement that, in view of the Rs 15 lakh permanent alimony payment, the man would have no further liability to pay the Rs 15,000 monthly maintenance awarded in an earlier order, the court noted that he had already deposited Rs 7.5 lakh pursuant to its November 13, 2024 order, and allowed her to withdraw it.

The court then directed him to pay the remaining Rs 7.5 lakh within one month from the date of receiving a copy of this order. Before parting, the court reiterated that family courts must strictly follow the Rajnesh guidelines and insist on affidavits of assets and liabilities from both parties before deciding maintenance or permanent alimony.

“The Family Courts shall insist upon both parties furnishing their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities before determining maintenance or permanent alimony, so as to enable the Court to make a fair, objective and realistic assessment of the financial circumstances of the parties,” it concluded.