The Telangana High Court has held that a party seeking permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 must file a specific application seeking such relief and that courts cannot grant permanent alimony in the absence of such a plea.

The Court rejected the contention that permanent alimony can be awarded without a separate application and observed that the statutory scheme itself requires an independent request for such relief.

The Court was hearing a family court appeal filed by a wife challenging the dismissal of her petition under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking annulment of marriage on the ground that the husband had misrepresented his date of birth before marriage.

A Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed: “It was contended before us that no separate application is required under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of permanent alimony. We disagree with the said contention inasmuch as a bare reading of Section 25 clearly indicates that a separate application is required to be made for seeking permanent alimony.”

“Therefore, in the present case, in the absence of a specific application, we cannot award permanent alimony to the appellant/wife”, the Bench added.

Advocate Pushpinder Kaur appeared for the appellant, while Advocate G. Ramakrishna appeared for the respondent.

Background

The appellant-wife had approached the Family Court under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of nullity. Her case was that the marriage was arranged through an online matrimonial portal and that the respondent had represented his date of birth as 09.02.1981, whereas his actual date of birth was 09.02.1974.

According to her, the incorrect date of birth resulted in horoscope matching being conducted on a false basis, which induced her consent to the marriage.

The wife alleged that she came to know of the husband's actual date of birth only when the parties applied for registration of their marriage before the Sub-Registrar. She contended that the respondent had played a fraud upon her and sought annulment of the marriage.

The Family Court, however, dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal, both parties filed affidavits stating that they were not interested in continuing their marital relationship. The wife expressed willingness to withdraw the pending criminal and domestic violence proceedings, subject to receipt of a fair and reasonable settlement and return of her gold ornaments, while the husband stated that he would consent to the appeal provided those proceedings were withdrawn.

Court's Observations

The High Court noted that both spouses had unequivocally stated before the Court that they were not interested in continuing their marital relationship. The Court observed that there was no possibility of reunion between them and that the marriage had effectively broken down.

The Bench found that the disputes relating to settlement amount, return of gold ornaments and withdrawal of pending criminal and domestic violence proceedings had arisen during the pendency of the appeal and had not been pleaded or adjudicated before the Family Court. Consequently, those issues could not be decided in the appeal proceedings.

The Court observed that the wife's claim regarding the return of gold ornaments and demand for a full and final settlement amount, as well as the husband's assertions concerning possession of gold, involved disputed questions of fact.

The Bench held: “The said aspects are disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in the present appeal. Moreover, they have not pleaded and proved the same before the learned Family Court. The same are developments during the pendency of the present appeal.”

According to the Court, those disputes would have to be resolved before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law.

Turning to the issue of permanent alimony, the Court examined Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and held that the provision expressly contemplates a specific application by the party seeking such relief.

The Bench observed: “Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a party seeking permanent alimony has to make a specific application in that regard. In the present case, the appellant has not filed any such application. If the appellant wants permanent alimony, she has to make an application as required under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court.”

The Court further observed that in the absence of a specific application seeking permanent alimony, it was not open to the appellate court to award such relief. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had taken the same view regarding the requirement of an application under Section 25.

The Court reiterated that permanent alimony could not be granted merely because the issue was raised during arguments or in affidavits filed before the appellate court. The statutory requirement of an application under Section 25 had to be satisfied before the claim could be considered on the merits.

Accordingly, the Court held that while the wife remained at liberty to pursue her remedies relating to permanent alimony before the appropriate forum, no such relief could be granted in the present appeal.

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Telangana High Court set aside the order of the Family Court and dissolved the marriage between the parties by granting a decree of divorce. However, the Court declined to award permanent alimony on the ground that no application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act had been filed seeking such relief.

Liberty was granted to the wife to pursue appropriate remedies regarding permanent alimony and return of gold ornaments before the competent forum, including in the pending domestic violence proceedings.

Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates Pushpinder Kaur, G. Durga Charan

Respondent: Advocates G. Ramakrishna, Pradeep Kumar Lahot

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: