'Permanent Alimony Not Intended To Equalise Wealth': Karnataka High Court Slashes Wife's ₹2 Crore Alimony To ₹50 Lakh

The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the dissolution of marriage between a couple on grounds of cruelty, while substantially reducing the permanent alimony awarded to the wife from Rs. 2 crores to Rs. 50 lakhs. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar 348]

The court held further that permanent alimony is not intended to equalise the assets or wealth of the parties but to ensure reasonable maintenance. 

A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan disposed of an an appeal filed by the husband, challenging the Family Court's order, while holding that alimony must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual needs of the wife and the paying capacity of the husband, without placing an unreasonable financial burden upon him.

“…. Permanent alimony is not intended to equalise the assets or wealth of the parties, but to ensure that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable dignity and in accordance with the circumstances of the case. The petitioner is a qualified medical professional, is employed and has an independent source of income and her own financial assets. These circumstances are relevant while determining the quantum of permanent alimony… considering the financial status, independent source of income and her own financial assets, as discussed above, we deem it just and proper to grant permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner.”, the court noted in the order saying that the award of Rs. 2 crore as permanent alimony is on the higher side.

The Court also took into account the husband's substantial expenditure in UK litigation to the tune of Rs 84 lakhs, his outstanding financial commitments, and his responsibility towards the children and aged parents. Hence, the Court reduced the permanent alimony to Rs. 50 lakhs, payable within three months.

“…. While determining the quantum, the Court is also required to take into account the income, assets, liabilities and continuing financial commitments of the husband. …. The fact that the respondent[husband] may have a higher income cannot, by itself, justify a disproportionate lump sum award. The amount must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual needs of the wife and the paying capacity of the husband, without placing an unreasonable financial burden upon him….”, the court added.

The husband was earning approximately Rs 70 lakhs per annum whereas the wife was earning Rs 1.22 lakhs net per month, as per the family court.

For further context, the husband and wife were college mates whose marriage was solemnised in 2011. They later shifted to the United Kingdom and two daughters were born out of the wedlock. After the relationship waned, the doctor-wife sought divorce on grounds of cruelty, along with permanent alimony of Rs. 5 crores. The husband also filed a counterclaim under Section 9 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

The Mangaluru Family Court, allowed the wife's petition and dissolved the marriage, while dismissing the husband's counter-claim with costs. The court also awarded Rs. 2 crore as permanent alimony, besides Rs. 25,000 per month towards maintenance of the two minor children with an enhancement of Rs. 5,000 every two years.

The wife alleged that the husband was controlling, objected to her professional career and higher education, frequently quarrelled with her, physically assaulted her on several occasions, and behaved abusively towards her and her parents. She also alleged that he was hostile towards her parents, particularly during her pregnancies, and did not permit her to freely visit or maintain contact with her parental family.

The wife further alleged that the husband repeatedly claimed she suffered from mental illness, including in custody proceedings, without any medical evidence. She also relied on an incident involving the removal of her deceased father's photograph from the matrimonial home.

The husband, on the other hand, denied having physically assaulted the petitioner or having prevented her from pursuing her medical profession or higher education, claiming he had financially supported her education.

He alleged that the wife's difficulties were attributable to her own emotional and psychological issues and to the interference of her parents and uncles

The Division Bench, after examining the evidence, observed that the matrimonial relationship had reached a stage from which there was no possibility of restoration. The Court noted that the wife's version received substantial support from WhatsApp communications, which contained admissions and expressions of regret on the part of the husband fir the alleged abuse meted out by him.

The high court further observed that while the parties had undergone counselling and resumed their matrimonial relationship for some time, the fact that they made an attempt to save the marriage could not obliterate subsequent conduct. The Court said:

“...The evidence has to be considered not by isolating individual incidents, but by looking at the matrimonial relationship as a whole and the cumulative effect of the conduct of the parties.”

The Court, after hearing both sides, further noted:

“…A dispute which commenced within the matrimonial home at Mangaluru has travelled from Mangaluru to the United Kingdom, crossed the shores of this country and has finally reached before us. The very course which the litigation has taken coupled with the prolonged separation and the bitterness that has developed between the parties, is a telling indication of the extent to which the matrimonial relationship has deteriorated. A marriage is expected to provide companionship, trust and emotional security; it cannot be reduced to a continuing source of litigation, allegations and counter-allegations...”

Before parting, the Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 25,000 per month to each child, totaling Rs. 50,000 per month, towards their maintenance, education, medical and other reasonable needs, from the date of the order until each child attains majority.

The husband shall continue to discharge his parental obligations and contribute reasonably towards the marriage expenses of each child at the appropriate time, the court added.

“…. The respondent, having regard to his earning capacity, can reasonably be directed to make a regular monthly contribution towards the maintenance, education and welfare of both children, so that the financial burden of raising them does not fall disproportionately upon either parent…”, the court added.

Similarly, the wife shall not temporarily or permanently relocate the children outside India without prior intimation to the husband and appropriate court orders, the High Court said. However, the wife shall have exclusive physical custody of their children, subject to visitation rights of the husband, the court clarified.

Case Title: P v.N

Case No: MFA No. 1575 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 348

Click Here To Read/Download Order