The Karnataka High Court has held that the quantum of permanent alimony cannot be determined based solely on the duration of marriage or “by applying a mathematical formula”.

In doing so the court dismissed cross appeals filed by a husband and wife challenging a family court order that dissolved their marriage and awarded Rs 50 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife.

“The contention of the Respondent that the amount should be reduced merely because the marriage was of short duration or because he claims to be presently unemployed cannot be accepted. Permanent alimony cannot be determined on the basis of the duration of the marriage alone or by applying a mathematical formula,” the Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan said, while upholding the family court order.

The Bench noted that the Family Court did not grant the permanent alimony of Rs 3 crore sought by the wife. Instead, after taking into account the circumstances of both parties— including the incomplete financial disclosure by the husband, his job termination, the fact that the wife left her job at the husband's instance as well as her young age, educational qualifications and future job prospects— the court granted the amount at Rs 50 lakh.

“On an overall consideration of the material, we find that the Family Court has struck a reasonable balance between the competing circumstances of the parties. It neither accepted the Respondent's plea that the Petitioner was disentitled to a substantial amount merely because of the short duration of the marriage, nor accepted the Petitioner's claim for Rs.3,00,00,000/- without supporting evidence,” the Court added.

The Court also placed reliance on Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021), wherein the Supreme Court has held, “An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174]. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court.”

Holding that the husband failed to demonstrate that the Rs 50 lakh award was excessive and it warranted reduction to Rs 10 lakh, the Bench held, “In the absence of any perversity, material omission or an unreasonable approach on the part of the Family Court, we find no justification to interfere with the considered award of Rs.50,00,000/-.”

'Marriage disintegration beyond scope of revival'

The High Court further found that the matrimonial relationship was “strained almost from the beginning” and had “deteriorated beyond repair.”

“There were differences between the Petitioner and the Respondent's parents, disputes concerning household affairs, differences regarding the Petitioner's employment, disagreements during the period of their stay at Mumbai and Qatar, and finally complete breakdown of communication and cohabitation. The Family Court has therefore considered the cumulative effect of the conduct of both parties rather than examining each allegation in isolation. Such an approach cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the evidence on record,” the Court said.

“The entire facts disclose a marriage that is disintegrated beyond any scope of revival and no useful purpose would come out of continuing to keep the parties married to each other,” the High Court said.

Background

The parties were married on January 6, 2021. Prior to the marriage, the wife worked as an assistant professor but later resigned at the husband's instance. The husband was employed as a general manager in Doha, Qatar.

In 2023, she filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the family court. She alleged ill-treatment by her husband and his family and submitted that she was sent back from Qatar in 2022 when her visa was nearing expiration. Later, she told the court, the husband refused to take her back either to Qatar or her matrimonial home in Mumbai, despite her reconciliation efforts.

The husband filed a counterclaim seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty, alleging that the wife was quarrelsome, disrespectful to his family, and had visited the matrimonial home with police and relatives. In her rejoinder, the wife sought Rs 3 crore as permanent alimony.

The family court dismissed the wife's plea and granted the divorce along with a permanent alimony of Rs 50 lakh to the wife.

Aggrieved, both partied appealed before the High Court.

The wife sought setting aside of the divorce decree and enhancement of permanent alimony to Rs 3 crore. On the other hand, the husband sought reduction in the amount to Rs 10 lakh, on the grounds that the marriage barely subsided for two years and the parties lived together for a few months. He argued that the quantum of alimony was disproportionate to the marital period and that the family court failed to take into account his termination from job, his liabilities and debts, and that his wife is highly educated, capable of earning independently.

The Division Bench dismissed the appeals, holding, “The conclusion of the Family Court is supported by evidence and does not suffer from any perversity.”

Case: R vs S

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3547/2026(FC)

Click Here To Read/Download Order