‘Section 25 HMA not merely subsistence-oriented’: Raj HC raises permanent alimony to ₹40 lakh for estranged wife

Jodhpur: A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court enhanced the permanent alimony payable to a divorced wife from ₹25 lakh to ₹40 lakh, holding that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not merely subsistence-oriented but is intended to secure dignified sustenance and long-term financial stability for an economically disadvantaged spouse. The bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit allowed the wife’s appeal while dismissing the husband’s cross-appeal, which had sought reduction of the alimony awarded by the Family Court.

The parties were married on April 23, 1994 at Marwar Junction according to Hindu rites and customs. Two sons, Govind Singh and Himanshu Singh, were born from the wedlock, both of whom are now adults. The wife filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on March 2, 2015 before the Family Court, Jodhpur, alleging cruelty and desertion. The husband, a Specialist Medical Officer (ENT) at Bangad Government Hospital, Pali — filed a cross-petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

The parties had been living separately since May 2009. The wife alleged that on May 1, 2009, she was physically assaulted by the husband at the government quarters, threatened with death, and forcibly evicted from the matrimonial home. The husband, for his part, contended that it was the wife who voluntarily deserted him on May 25, 2009.

By its judgment dated August 29, 2025, the Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay permanent alimony of ₹25 lakh within three months, while also directing him to continue paying ₹45,000 per month as maintenance. The husband’s Section 9 petition was dismissed. The wife challenged the quantum as grossly inadequate and sought enhancement to ₹2 crore. The husband cross-appealed, contending the award was excessive. Neither party challenged the dissolution of marriage itself.

Counsel for the wife submitted that the Family Court failed to properly appreciate the husband’s financial capacity. It was argued that the husband earns approximately ₹8–10 lakh per month as an ENT Specialist and Senior Medical Officer at Bangar Government Hospital, Pali — with a salary exceeding ₹3 lakh per month, supplemented by income from private practice, issuance of fitness certificates at the RTO, and a medical agency in Jaipur. The wife contended that she has no independent source of income, has been single-handedly raising two children for over 16 years, and does not own any residential accommodation while the husband owns multiple properties. The award of ₹25 lakh was characterised as disproportionately low, failing to account for inflation, future expenses, and the need to secure even basic residential security.

Counsel for the husband contended that the alleged additional sources of income — from private practice, RTO certifications, and a medical agency — were unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence. As a government doctor drawing a non-practice allowance, it was submitted, the husband is legally prohibited from engaging in private income-generating activities.

It was further argued that the wife is a qualified advocate (BA LLB, LLM) enrolled since 2007 and practicing before the Rajasthan High Court, earning approximately ₹50,000 per month, and also derives income from teaching. The husband submitted that both sons are adults capable of supporting their mother, that he is already paying maintenance regularly, and that his financial liabilities — including ₹35,000 per month towards medical expenses for his bedridden mother and responsibility for a disabled brother — substantially reduced his paying capacity. Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mat. App. (F.C.) 2/2024 for the proposition that permanent alimony is intended to prevent destitution, not to enrich a financially independent spouse.

The Division Bench began by underscoring the true scope of Section 25. “The scope of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not merely subsistence-oriented but is intended to secure dignified sustenance and long-term financial stability for the spouse who is economically disadvantaged as a consequence of marital breakdown,” the Court observed, emphasising that the provision is equitable in character and requires consideration of multiple factors including the status of the parties, the income and financial capacity of the husband, the reasonable needs of the wife, and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.

On the husband’s financial capacity, the Court noted that his own affidavit (Exhibit-108) reflected a regular monthly income in the vicinity of ₹2 lakh, secured by permanent government employment carrying with it increments, allowances, and pensionary entitlements. While agreeing with the trial court that the wife’s claims of ₹8–10 lakh monthly income from private sources were not established by cogent documentary evidence, the Court held that “the absence of strict proof of such additional earnings does not detract from the undeniable fact that the respondent’s base income itself is substantial and places him in an upper economic bracket.” The husband also disclosed ownership of a self-acquired residential house being serviced through a bank loan, an undivided share in ancestral agricultural land, and other immovable assets — all of which the Court held were relevant indicators of overall financial standing.

The husband’s plea of financial obligations towards his aged parents and dependent brother was acknowledged, but the Court held that these “do not, in the facts of the present case, appear to be of such overwhelming magnitude as to substantially erode his capacity to make a reasonable one-time provision for his wife,” noting that no clear and quantified evidence had been placed on record to demonstrate the extent of these liabilities.

The Court found the wife’s position of economic vulnerability clearly established. The documents produced by the husband pertaining to her past professional engagement all related to the period prior to 2011 and did not establish any present earning capacity. Her physical condition, supported by medical documents, was a further relevant factor. Crucially, the wife had no independent residential accommodation while the husband owned property. “The right of a divorced wife to secure a reasonable residence is now a well-recognized facet of maintenance jurisprudence,” the Court observed, holding that the amount awarded must be sufficient to enable her to secure at least a modest dwelling and ensure long-term financial security.

Three fundamental facts weighed heavily on the Court: the marriage had subsisted for nearly 15 years of cohabitation before the separation in 2009, followed by prolonged litigation; the wife had been living separately and discharging parental responsibilities single-handedly for more than 16 years; and the husband was a Specialist Medical Officer in secure government service with a stable and respectable income.

At the same time, the Court declined to accept the wife’s claim of ₹2 crore, finding it “disproportionate and not fully supported by reliable evidence regarding the husband’s alleged income of ₹8–10 lakhs per month.” The Court cautioned that it “must guard against converting alimony into a measure of enrichment rather than support.” The Delhi High Court judgment relied upon by the husband was distinguished on facts — in that case the wife was a senior IRTS officer with a stable and substantial income, the marriage was short-lived and without children, and no case for permanent alimony was made out.

Allowing the wife’s appeal and dismissing the husband’s cross-appeal, the Division Bench enhanced the permanent alimony from ₹25 lakh to ₹40 lakh (Rupees Forty Lakhs only), payable by the husband within six months from the date of the order. Until the amount is deposited, the husband is directed to continue paying monthly maintenance as before. The findings of the Family Court stand modified to this extent, and a decree sheet is to be prepared accordingly.

Case Details