Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Shobha Kanwar vs Narpat Singh (2026:Rj-Jd:14919-Db) on 1 April, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3388/2025
Shobha Kanwar W/o Narpat Singh, Aged About 43 Years, D/o
Dunger Singh Residing At 3 P 37, kudi Bhagtasni, Housing
Board, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
Narpat Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh, Resident Of Morkha, Tehsil
Desuri, District Pali, At Present Residing Behind Bangar
Government Hospital, Government Quarter, Pali.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3601/2025
Dr. Narpat Singh S/o Late Sh. Mohan Singh, Aged About 54
Years, R/o Morkha Tehsil Desuri District Pali Opposite Bangur
Hospital Quarters At Present Residing At 05 Ashirwad Township
Khairva Road Pali Husband
----Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shobha Kunwar W/o Dr Narpat Singh, Aged About 53
Years, D/o Shri Dungar Singh R/o 8 T 66 Gokuldham Society
Kudi Bhagtasni Housing Board Jodhpur Raj. Wife
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nitin Trivedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogesh Sharma
Mr. Deepesh Birla
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Judgment
Judgment Reserved On : 19/02/2026
Judgment Pronounced On : 01/04/2026
By the Court (Per: Arun Monga, J)
1. By this common judgment and order, the present two cross-
appeals are being adjudicated together, as both arise from the
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (2 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
same judgment and decree dated 29.08.2025 passed by the
learned Family Court, Jodhpur. By the said judgment, the marriage
between the parties was dissolved, and the husband was directed
to pay permanent alimony of ₹25,00,000/- to the wife.
2. The wife has challenged the quantum of alimony on the
ground that it is grossly inadequate, whereas the husband, by way
of a cross-appeal, has assailed the same as being excessive.
Dissolution of marriage is not under challenge by either side. The
wife, in her appeal, seeks enhancement of the permanent alimony
to at least ₹2 crore, having regard to the financial status of the
husband as asserted by her. In this common order parties are
being addressed as per the memo of parties filed by the wife.
FACTUAL NARRATIVE
3. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the
marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.04.1994 at
Marwar Junction in accordance with Hindu rites and customs.
Irreconcilable differences arose leading to the appellant/wife, Smt.
Shobha Kanwar, instituting a petition under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act on 02.03.2015 against the respondent-
husband, Narpat Singh. Out of the wedlock, two sons, Govind
Singh and Himanshu Singh, were born, who are now adults.
3.1. It is the case of the appellant that at the time of marriage,
her parental family provided gifts, household articles, and
streedhan, including gold and silver ornaments, beyond their
financial capacity. These articles, according to her, remain in the
possession of the respondent and his family. It is further alleged
that the respondent and his family were dissatisfied with the
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (3 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
dowry and subjected her to taunts and harassment on that
account.
3.2. The appellant has further averred that after the year 2003,
the demands of the respondent and his family escalated, along
with the intensity of harassment. In 2004, the respondent, along
with his parents and younger brother, allegedly conspired to
compel her to persuade her father to sell his residential house at
Marwar Junction as well as agricultural land, and to hand over the
sale proceeds to finance the business ventures of the respondent’s
brothers. Upon her refusal, she was allegedly subjected to severe
harassment and hostility, and despite repeated efforts at
reconciliation, the respondent and his family remained adamant in
their demands.
3.3. It is further alleged that in 2009, proceedings under Sections
107 and 116 CrPC were initiated before the SDO, Pali, against the
respondent and his family. However, no effective action was taken,
allegedly on account of the respondent’s position as a medical
officer.
3.4. The appellant has also relied upon photographs to
substantiate allegations of physical assault. During the said
proceedings, it is alleged that the respondent forcibly took away
their minor son, Himanshu Singh.
3.5. The appellant has specifically alleged that on 01.05.2009,
she was physically assaulted by the respondent at the government
quarters, resulting in injuries, and was threatened with death and
forcibly driven out of the matrimonial home along with the
children. She thereafter obtained medical treatment and an injury
report. Since that date, the respondent has allegedly neither
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (4 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
maintained nor cared for her and the children. Efforts at
reconciliation failed, as the respondent allegedly insisted upon
transfer of her father’s house and sale of agricultural land as a
precondition for her return.
3.6. It is further the case of the appellant that since 01.05.2009,
she has been deprived of matrimonial consortium without
reasonable cause, and the respondent has refused to resume
cohabitation despite repeated efforts at settlement.
3.7. The appellant also initiated proceedings under the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence, Act before the Judicial
Magistrate, Marwar Junction, wherein interim maintenance of
₹12,000/- per month was granted by order dated 14.11.2013. It is
alleged that the respondent, aggrieved by these proceedings,
issued threats to kidnap the children, cause grievous harm, and
even kill her if she did not withdraw the cases.
3.8. Further, in September 2014, when the appellant was
travelling to Jodhpur, the respondent, along with his family
members, allegedly intercepted and threatened her, leading to the
lodging of an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 323, and 120B IPC,
which remains under investigation.
3.9. The appellant has stated that she has no independent source
of income. She is pursuing a Ph.D., which involves substantial
expenses, and is undergoing legal training in Jodhpur without any
regular or stable earnings. She asserts that she alone is bearing
the educational and daily expenses of both children.
3.10. With regard to the financial status of the respondent, it is
alleged that he is employed as a Medical Officer at Bangad
Hospital, Pali, drawing a monthly salary of ₹90,000/-. In addition,
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (5 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
he is stated to be earning ₹50,000/- per month through private
practice, ₹50,000/- per month from conducting RTO-related
medical examinations, and ₹1,00,000/- per month from a medical
agency in Jaipur, thereby totaling an approximate monthly income
of ₹2,90,000/-.
3.11. On these grounds, the appellant asserts that she has been
subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty and has been
deserted without reasonable cause. She, therefore, seeks
dissolution of marriage and claims permanent alimony of
₹80,00,000/- under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4. In response, the respondent, in his written statement, has
admitted the factum of marriage and the birth of two children but
has denied all other allegations, contending that the petition is
based on false and fabricated facts. He has specifically denied any
demand for dowry or receipt of excessive gifts or streedhan.
4.1. The respondent has asserted that it was the appellant who
deserted him in May 2009, compelling him to file a petition under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal
rights. He has stated that on 25.05.2009, while he was at the
hospital, the appellant, allegedly at the instigation of her father,
left the matrimonial home with the children and household
articles, prompting him to lodge a missing report at Police Station
Kotwali, Pali. He further claims that the remaining articles were
subsequently returned during investigation, and no streedhan
remains with him.
4.2. The respondent has further averred that the appellant is a
qualified advocate who has made false allegations. He denies any
acts of cruelty, conspiracy, or dowry demands and states that after
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (6 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
marriage, she stayed only briefly in his ancestral village, as he
was pursuing MBBS in Jodhpur at the time. He asserts that he
maintained her properly and bore all expenses, including those
related to childbirth.
4.3. It is also alleged by the respondent that the appellant
neglected household responsibilities, interfered in family matters
through her parents, prevented him from attending family
functions, and used to take his entire salary. He claims that she
pressured him to live as a “ghar jamai” and voluntarily left the
matrimonial home on 25.05.2009.
4.4 The respondent further submits that he made efforts to bring
her back from Marwar Junction, but she refused to return, and
thereafter misused legal provisions after a lapse of five years. He
maintains that he is still willing to resume matrimonial relations.
4.5. It is also stated that pursuant to mediation proceedings
before the Rajasthan High Court on 30.03.2015, he has been
paying maintenance and bearing educational expenses of the elder
son, as reflected in orders dated 16.04.2015 and 25.05.2015.
4.6. The respondent has denied the allegations regarding
additional sources of income, including private practice, RTO
examinations, or income from a medical agency, stating that he
receives only his salary along with non-practice allowance from
the State Government. He has further stated that he is
responsible for maintaining his aged parents and a disabled
brother, and that his parents are undergoing medical treatment for
serious ailments.
4.7. The respondent has also asserted that the appellant is well-
qualified (BA LL.B., LL.M.), is practicing as an advocate before the
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (7 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, earning approximately ₹50,000/-
per month, and is also employed as a teacher in a private school.
He claims to be paying ₹17,000/- per month towards maintenance
and bearing educational expenses of his son, and asserts that the
appellant is not entitled to any further maintenance. According to
him, the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with
costs.
Submissions on behalf of the husband
5. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the
respondent-wife, Smt. Shobha Kunwar, in paragraph 18 of her
petition, asserted her monthly and future expenses while alleging
that the appellant’s income was ₹2,90,000/- per month and
claimed permanent alimony of ₹80,00,000/-. These assertions
were made without any documentary or oral evidence. No proof
was adduced to establish the alleged additional sources of income,
such as earnings from a medical agency, RTO-related
certifications, or private practice. The appellant specifically denied
all such allegations in his reply, and, being a government doctor
receiving non-practice allowance, it is legally impermissible for
him to engage in private income-generating activities. In these
circumstances, the award of ₹25,00,000/- as permanent alimony,
based on unsubstantiated claims and overlooking the fact that the
respondent left the matrimonial home of her own accord on
25.05.2009 (while incorrectly alleging the date as 01.05.2009), is
wholly unsustainable.
5.1. The learned Family Court further erred in overlooking that
the respondent, examined as PW-1, produced 115 documents
during her examination-in-chief dated 03.12.2021; however, none
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (8 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
of these documents substantiated her allegations regarding the
appellant’s alleged additional income from private practice, RTO
work, or any medical agency. Her statements on this aspect are
thus baseless and unsupported by evidence. Conversely, during
her cross-examination dated 17.05.2022, she admitted that she
has been enrolled as an advocate since 2007, which stands proved
by Exhibit D-14. She also acknowledged that she is regularly
practicing and earning, and further derives income from tuition
classes, as evidenced by Exhibits D-12 and D-13. Merely because
her income tax returns reflect adjusted income does not imply
absence of income. The trial court failed to consider these material
aspects while determining permanent alimony.
5.2. The learned Family Court also failed to consider that the
respondent resides with her adult son, Govind Singh, who
completed his B.Tech in 2017 from Vyas Engineering College,
Jodhpur, with expenses borne by the appellant. Thereafter, he was
employed as an Assistant Professor in an engineering college at
Jodhpur and was earning ₹25,000/- per month as early as 2019,
which would have reasonably increased over time. Although
examined as PW-2, he reiterated the respondent’s version;
however, in cross-examination dated 12.01.2023, he admitted
that he had completed his B.Tech in 2017 and had arrived at court
on a motorcycle. The said motorcycle, i.e., a Royal Enfield valued
at over ₹2.5 lakhs indicates financial capacity inconsistent with his
claim that he is unable to maintain himself. His statement that he
is presently unemployed and preparing for competitive
examinations is thus unreliable, and his credibility stands
impeached. The trial court failed to appreciate that the respondent
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (9 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
resides with adult, qualified, and earning sons, and consequently
erred in awarding ₹25,00,000/- as permanent alimony.
5.3. The impugned order is based on conjectures and ignores the
statutory framework governing maintenance. Under the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as well as Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, maintenance obligations towards
children are confined to minors or, in limited cases, major children
suffering from disability. It is undisputed that both sons of the
respondent have attained majority and do not suffer from any
disability. Therefore, the financial responsibility for their
maintenance cannot be imposed upon the appellant. On the
contrary, as able-bodied adult sons, they are legally obliged to
support their mother. The trial court erred in disregarding this
settled position.
5.4. The learned Family Court further failed to consider the
appellant’s financial liabilities. The appellant’s mother is bedridden
due to a cerebrovascular accident and incurs medical expenses of
approximately ₹35,000/- per month. Additionally, his disabled
younger brother and sister-in-law are dependent upon him. The
appellant is the sole earning member of his family. In contrast, the
respondent is earning, has no comparable financial liabilities, and
is supported by her parental family as well as her earning adult
sons. These material factors were not properly weighed by the
trial court.
5.5. The learned Family Court misapplied the principles
governing grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the
Hindu Marriage Act. While determining alimony, the court is
required to consider the income and financial status of both
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (10 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
parties, their conduct, standard of living, independent earning
capacity of the spouse seeking maintenance, and the liabilities of
the other spouse. In the present case, these parameters have not
been judiciously evaluated, and the lump sum amount awarded is
arbitrary and beyond the appellant’s paying capacity.
5.6. It is also pertinent that the respondent has simultaneously
filed an appeal seeking enhancement of maintenance while
initiating execution proceedings of the same decree before the
trial court. This amounts to taking inconsistent positions,
approbating and reprobating, solely to harass the appellant, and
reflects adversely on her conduct. The factual matrix
demonstrates that the respondent is financially capable of
maintaining herself and is residing in a stable condition with her
earning adult sons. Accordingly, the award of ₹25,00,000/- as
permanent alimony is untenable.
5.7. Lastly, in the present case arising under Sections 13 and 25
of the Hindu Marriage Act, the provision under Section 24 relates
only to maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses during
the pendency of proceedings. Any typographical error in the final
judgment was duly corrected by the trial court within its
jurisdiction and does not amount to a substantive alteration under
Section 152 CPC. Further, Section 25 contemplates grant of
permanent alimony only to a spouse, and not for maintenance of
adult children. Therefore, the financial responsibilities relating to
the respondent’s adult sons, including their maintenance,
education, or marriage, cannot be imposed upon the appellant.
5.8. In the light of the aforesaid submission, the counsel for the
appellant-husband also relied on a Division Bench of Delhi High
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (11 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
Court’s judgment in Mat. App. (F.C.) 2/2024 & CM Appl. 360/2024
wherein considering the scope of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, it is held that permanent alimony is an equitable relief
intended to prevent destitution, not to enrich a financially
independent spouse.
Submission on behalf of the wife
6. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court
No.1, Jodhpur suffers from material irregularity and illegality,
inasmuch as the court failed to properly appreciate the factual
matrix and the material evidence on record. Consequently, the
quantum of permanent alimony awarded is inadequate and liable
to be enhanced and suitably modified.
6.1. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the object
of granting permanent alimony is to secure the wife’s reasonable
needs, standard of living, and long-term financial stability,
commensurate with the husband’s financial capacity and social
status. In the present case, it was duly pleaded and supported by
oral and documentary evidence that the respondent-husband
earns approximately ₹8-10 lakhs per month, being an ENT
specialist and a Senior Medical Officer at Bangar Government
Hospital, Pali. In contrast, the appellant has no independent
source of income and has been single-handedly raising two
children for over 16 years. Considering the future requirements of
the appellant and her children, including education, marriage,
healthcare, and social obligations, the amount of ₹25 lakhs
awarded is wholly inadequate. The same deserves to be enhanced
to ₹2 crores. The failure of the trial court to properly evaluate
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (12 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
these aspects while deciding Issue Nos. 4 and 5 renders the
findings unsustainable and vitiated by an error apparent on the
face of the record.
6.2. The learned Family Court below further erred in not factoring
in the impact of inflation and the increasing financial needs of the
appellant and her children over time. The computation of alimony
has been made without considering the future escalation in
expenses necessary to maintain a reasonable standard of living.
The amount awarded is thus insufficient to meet long-term needs
and is liable to be enhanced. The omission to consider these
relevant factors constitutes a patent error on the face of the
record.
6.3. The appellant has specifically pleaded and substantiated
through cogent evidence that the respondent is employed as an
ENT Specialist and serves as a Specialist Medical Officer at
Government Bangar Hospital, Pali, drawing a salary exceeding
₹3,00,000/- per month. In addition, he earns ₹2-3 lakhs per
month from private practice, ₹2-3 lakhs per month from issuing
fitness certificates at the RTO, and further income from a medical
agency, an aspect admitted by him in proceedings under the
Domestic Violence Act. The respondent also derives income from
ancestral agricultural land and residential properties. Thus, his
total monthly income is approximately ₹8-10 lakhs. In view of this
financial capacity, the appellant is entitled to a comparable
standard of living. The trial court failed to properly consider this
evidence, resulting in an unjust and inadequate award of alimony.
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (13 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
6.4. The learned Family Court below did not adequately consider
that the appellant is responsible for maintaining herself and her
two children, which entails substantial financial obligations
towards their education, marriage, healthcare, and other social
needs. Despite this, only a sum of ₹25 lakhs has been awarded,
which is disproportionately low considering the respondent’s
financial status. The amount of permanent alimony ought to have
been enhanced to ₹2 crores. The failure to consider these material
aspects renders the impugned findings erroneous.
6.5. The learned Family Court below failed to take into account
the settled position of law, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, that a wife is entitled to secure residential accommodation.
In the present case, although the court recorded that the
appellant does not own any residential property while the
respondent owns residential houses, no amount has been awarded
to enable the appellant to acquire even a modest residence. The
appellant continues to remain without a house, whereas the
respondent owns multiple properties. This crucial aspect has been
ignored, and the meagre amount awarded is insufficient to secure
even basic residential needs. The award, therefore, requires
enhancement.
6.6. The impugned order does not disclose any cogent reasoning
or basis for arriving at the quantum of ₹25 lakhs. Considering the
respondent’s substantial monthly income, it would have been
appropriate to allocate a proportionate share towards the
appellant and her children, taking into account their present and
future needs. The arbitrary determination of alimony without a
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (14 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
rational basis renders the award unsustainable and warrants
enhancement to ₹2 crores.
6.7. The learned Family Court further erred in allowing an
application under Section 152 CPC, whereby the original direction
granting ₹45,000/- per month to the appellant was modified to
restrict such payment only until the permanent alimony amount is
deposited. This modification materially alters the nature of the
original judgment and cannot be treated as a mere clerical or
typographical correction. In effect, it amounts to a substantive
review or alteration of the decree, which is impermissible under
Section 152 CPC. By virtue of the original order dated 29.08.2025,
the appellant was entitled to receive ₹45,000/- per month on a
continuing basis; however, the impugned modification has
curtailed this right, thereby causing serious prejudice to the
appellant.
7. In the aforesaid backdrop, we heard the rival contentions and
perused the case file along with the record of the learned Family
Court and shall now proceed to deal with the same by recording
our discussions and based thereupon render our opinion.
8. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to examine the
reasoning which weighed with the learned Family Judge while
returning the findings qua alimony in the impugned judgment.
8.1. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court observed
that the appellant had produced medical documents (Exhibits 58
to 76) and photographs to substantiate her ongoing treatment.
Her testimony regarding physical incapacity was corroborated by
both her sons. Although documents relating to her past
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (15 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
professional engagement (Exhibits D-12, D-13, and D-14) were
produced by the respondent, these pertained to a period prior to
2011. No evidence was produced to establish that she is presently
earning or capable of self-maintenance.
8.2. The learned Family court further noted that the burden to
prove the wife’s independent income lies upon the husband. In the
absence of such proof, the plea of concealment of income was not
accepted. While acknowledging that the appellant is well-qualified
(LLB and PhD), the court held that, prima facie, her current
physical condition restricts her ability to work.
8.3. With regard to the financial position of the respondent, the
court relied upon his affidavit (Exhibit-108), which reflected an
income of approximately ₹2 lakhs per month, ownership of self-
acquired residential property, and additional assets including
agricultural land and ancestral property. It was also noted that he
had purchased a house through a bank loan and was servicing the
same.
8.4. Considering the overall circumstances, while allowing the
petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, the non-appellant was directed to pay a lump sum
amount of ₹25 lakhs as permanent alimony within three months
and to continue paying ₹45,000/- per month as maintenance,
subject to subsequent modification limiting such payment until the
deposit of permanent alimony. The petition filed by the non-
appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was
dismissed.
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (16 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
9. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival
submissions, the material available on record, and the reasoning
assigned by the learned Family Court, we are of the view that
while the grant of permanent alimony in favour of the wife is fully
justified, the quantum determined by the learned Family Court
warrants upward revision. Let us see how.
10. At the outset, it must be emphasized that 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
provision is equitable in character and obligates the Court to
consider 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
subsistence of marriage.
11. Before arriving at the enhanced quantum, it is necessary to
closely examine the financial capacity of the respondent/husband
on the basis of the material available on record, being the central
determinant under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
12. The respondent is admittedly employed as a Specialist
Medical Officer (ENT) in Government service. His affidavit (Exhibit-
108), as noticed by the learned Family Court, reflects a regular
and stable monthly income in the vicinity of ₹2,00,000/-, which is
corroborated by his salary particulars. This income is not sporadic
or uncertain but is secured by virtue of permanent government
employment, carrying with it attendant benefits such as
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (17 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
increments, allowances, pensionary entitlements, and overall
financial security.
13. The contention of the wife that the respondent earns
substantially higher income through private practice, RTO
certification work, and medical agency operations has not been
established by cogent documentary evidence during trial. The
learned Family Court has rightly exercised caution in not placing
reliance on unsubstantiated claims of additional income. However,
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.
14. Further, from the respondent’s own disclosures, it emerges
that he is possessed of immovable assets, including a
self-acquired residential house for which he is servicing a loan, as
well as an undivided share in ancestral agricultural land and
residential property. These factors are relevant pointers of overall
financial standing and asset base, which must be taken into
account while assessing capacity to pay.
15. The plea raised by the respondent regarding financial
obligations towards his aged parents and dependent brother, no
doubt, cannot be ignored, but they 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. Notably, no clear and quantified evidence
has been placed on record to demonstrate that these liabilities are
so onerous as to render him financially constrained.
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (18 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
16. Equally important it is to note, that the respondent continues
to enjoy a steady stream of income with long-term financial
stability, whereas the appellant-wife is placed in a position of
comparative economic vulnerability. The statutory mandate under
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, requires the Court to
account not merely for current income but also for earning
capacity, financial security, and future prospects of the parties.
17. It is pertinent to note that certain very fundamental facts
stand either admitted or sufficiently established on record viz. :-
a. The marriage subsisted for a long duration of nearly 15
years of cohabitation, followed by prolonged litigation
since 2009;
b. The wife has been living separately along with the
children for more than 16 years, effectively discharging
parental and domestic responsibilities single-handedly;
c. The husband is a Specialist Medical Officer (ENT) in
Government service, enjoying a stable, secure, and
respectable source of income.
18. In the aforesaid backdrop, while the precise quantum of the
husband’s additional income from private sources may not have
been strictly proved by documentary evidence, it cannot be
ignored that his baseline earning capacity itself is substantial and
secure, with salary admittedly in the range of ₹2 lakhs per month
(as accepted by the trial court on affidavit evidence). The nature
of his professional qualification further indicates a high and
progressive earning potential, which is a relevant consideration
under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (19 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
19. On the other hand, the plea of the husband that the wife is
financially independent does not inspire confidence. The material
on record indicates that though the wife is academically qualified,
there is no cogent evidence of stable or sufficient income enabling
her to maintain herself at a standard commensurate with that
enjoyed in the matrimonial home. The documents relied upon by
the husband pertain to a period prior to 2011 and do not establish
any present earning capacity. Further, the evidence regarding her
physical condition, supported by medical documents, cannot be
lightly brushed aside.
20. Equally significant is the fact that the wife does not possess
any independent residential accommodation, whereas the husband
admittedly owns immovable property. The right of a divorced wife
to secure a reasonable residence is now a well-recognized facet of
maintenance jurisprudence. The amount awarded must, therefore,
be sufficient to enable her to secure at least a modest dwelling
and ensure long-term financial security.
21. The contention of the husband regarding the majority and
earning capacity of the sons, though legally relevant, does not
substantially dilute the wife’s entitlement under Section 25 of the
Hindu Marriage Act. Permanent alimony is not contingent upon
dependency of children alone, but is a distinct and independent
right of the spouse arising out of the dissolution of marriage. At
best, this factor may have a bearing on quantum, but cannot
negate entitlement.
22. At the same time, we are not persuaded to accept the
exaggerated claim of the wife seeking ₹2 crores as permanent
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (20 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
alimony. The said claim appears disproportionate and not fully
supported by reliable evidence regarding the husband’s alleged
income of ₹8-10 lakhs per month. We are mindful that this Court
must guard against converting alimony into a measure of
enrichment rather than support.
23. Thus, even on a conservative assessment, restricting the
evaluation strictly to the proven income on record and excluding
unproven additional sources, the respondent’s financial profile
clearly demonstrates sufficient means and capacity to discharge a
higher quantum of permanent alimony than what has been
awarded by the learned Family Court.
24. What is required is a balanced, realistic, and equitable
determination, which neither unduly burdens the husband nor
leaves the wife in a state of financial vulnerability. Considering;
the long duration of marriage and separation, the established
cruelty and consequent breakdown, the absence of independent
income and residential security of the wife, the stable and
substantial earning capacity of the husband, the rising cost of
living and inflationary trends, and the need to provide a one-time
financial cushion ensuring dignity and security, we are of the
opinion that the amount of ₹25,00,000/- awarded by the learned
Family Court is on the lower side and does not adequately meet
the ends of justice.
25. Accordingly, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the
permanent alimony is enhanced to ₹40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty
Lakhs only), payable by the respondent-husband to the appellant-
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9372-DB] (21 of 21) [CMA-3388/2025]
wife within a period of six months from today, until then he shall
continue to provide monthly maintenance as before.
26. In the parting we may also like to observe that Delhi High
court judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondent is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In
that case before High court the appellant(wife), a Senior IRTS
Officer with a stable and substantial income, was financially self-
sufficient and had no demonstrated hardship, liabilities, or
dependency. The marriage itself was short-lived, without children
or enduring interdependence. In such circumstances, no case for
permanent alimony was made out.
27. As an upshot, appeal filed by wife is allowed and that of the
husband is dismissed and the findings returns by learned Family
court and the impugned judgment stand modified as above.
28. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
29. Any pending application stands disposed of.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
59-60 neha/-
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 03:47:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:40:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
