Permanent Alimony Is A Measure Of Social Justice, Not A Tool For Personal Enrichment: Delhi High Court
The High Court has held that permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is intended to serve as a measure of social justice and not as a means of enrichment or equalising the financial status between two self-sufficient individuals.
Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that permanent alimony cannot be granted merely to equalise the financial standing between spouses who are both capable of sustaining themselves.
The High Court clarified that the object of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to provide relief only to a dependent spouse who requires financial protection following marital dissolution.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a senior officer challenging the Family Court’s refusal to grant her permanent alimony after her marriage was dissolved on grounds of cruelty. The Family Court had found no basis for awarding alimony since both parties were financially self-reliant and professionally accomplished.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, while dismissing the appeal, observed: “It is a settled principle that permanent alimony is intended as a measure of social justice and not as a tool for enrichment or equalizing the financial status of two capable individuals. The law requires that the applicant demonstrate a genuine need for financial assistance. In the present case, the Appellant‟s position as a senior government officer, her steady and substantial income, and the absence of dependents collectively establish that she is fully capable of maintaining herself. No evidence of financial incapacity, duress, or other compelling circumstances has been presented to justify judicial intervention.”
Advocate Sarim Naved represented the appellant, while Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate, represented the respondent.
Background
The marriage between the parties had been dissolved by the Family Court on the grounds of cruelty. The husband, an advocate, had filed for divorce alleging that his wife had subjected him and his family to verbal abuse, humiliation, and defamatory communications.
The Family Court allowed the divorce petition, finding that the wife’s conduct amounted to mental cruelty.
The wife, a senior officer, subsequently appealed against the decree, challenging both the finding of cruelty and the refusal to grant her permanent alimony. She argued that despite her employment, she was entitled to monetary relief under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming that her contribution to the marriage and emotional suffering warranted such compensation.
The husband opposed the appeal, contending that the wife’s demand for ₹50 lakh as a precondition for consenting to divorce reflected her financial motivation. He argued that she was well employed and financially independent, negating the basis for alimony.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court examined the scope and intent of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and reiterated that permanent alimony serves a social purpose, to provide financial protection to a spouse unable to maintain themselves, rather than to compensate or equalise wealth.
The Court observed that “the provision under Section 25 is fundamentally equitable in nature and aims to secure financial justice between spouses, ensuring that a party lacking independent means of subsistence is not left destitute following the dissolution of marriage.”
Upholding the Family Court’s decision to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty meted out by the wife towards the husband, the High Court held that the decision was “based on a cogent and balanced appreciation of the evidence and a correct application of legal principles.”
Furthermore, the Court scrutinised the Appellant's counter-case of cruelty filed against her husband and concluded that “mere assertion of counter-cruelty does not automatically nullify established acts of cruelty; each averment must be judged on its evidential merits.”
The Court also agreed with the Family Court’s inference that the appellant’s approach was influenced by monetary considerations, observing that her financial capacity rendered the claim for permanent alimony “wholly unjustified.”
While making these observations, the Bench remarked that “when a spouse, while ostensibly resisting the dissolution of marriage, simultaneously predicates consent thereto upon payment of a substantial sum, such conduct inevitably indicates that the resistance is not anchored in affection, reconciliation, or the preservation of the marital bond, but in pecuniary considerations.”
Further, upon examining the financial status for considering the plea of permanent alimony, the Court observed that “the material on record does not disclose any evidence of financial hardship, dependency, or extraordinary circumstances that would render her incapable of maintaining herself with dignity.”
Conclusion
Stating that “the law requires that the applicant demonstrate a genuine need for financial assistance”, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court’s decision denying permanent alimony.
Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9233-DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Sarim Naved, Zeeshan Ahmad, and Petitioner in person.
Respondent: Senior Advocate Rakesh Tiku with Advocate Arpan Wadhawan