In Absence Of Prayer, Permanent Alimony Cannot Be Granted As A Matter Of Course: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside ₹70 Lakh Alimony Award

Permanent Alimony Cannot Be Awarded In Vacuum Without Application, Issue Framing Or Evidence:  In a significant ruling the Gujarat High Court set aside a ₹70 lakh permanent alimony awarded by the Family Court, Vadodara, holding that the direction was passed in complete disregard of procedural and substantive requirements under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak noted that the Family Court had neither received any written application nor even an oral prayer for grant of permanent alimony, yet proceeded to award a substantial lump sum without evidence or framed issue.

“Reading Section 25 indicates that the words are very clear. There has to be an application made for such purposes. It cannot be granted in vacuum,” the Bench said, remanding the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration.

“Relief Under Section 25 Is Discretionary But Must Follow Judicial Process”: Court Emphasises Importance Of Evidence And Framing Of Issues
The parties were married in 2002, and the marriage broke down after the couple shifted to the United States. The husband filed Family Suit No. 61 of 2013 for divorce, which was granted on 16 January 2019 by the Family Court at Vadodara. However, the court also directed him to pay ₹70 lakhs to the wife as permanent alimony under Section 25.

Challenging this, the appellant-husband contended before the High Court that no such relief was ever prayed for by the wife—either in her pleadings or during final arguments—and that the Family Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding alimony suo motu and without supporting material.

The High Court strongly criticised this approach: “In the facts of the case, not even an oral request for permanent alimony was made. The Family Court, without framing any issue or directing the parties to lead evidence, could not have arrived at a quantified figure relying vaguely on the U.S. court’s findings.”

The Court noted that the wife had previously filed an interim maintenance application under Section 24 which was dismissed for want of prosecution, and at no subsequent stage did she revive the claim or press for permanent alimony.

“Equitable Jurisdiction Is Not Unfettered”: Court Criticises Vagueness And Lack Of Substantiation In Alimony Award

Referring to judgments such as Vinny Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar [(2011) 13 SCC 112], the Court observed that a claim under Section 25 must be backed by material on record showing the financial condition of the parties, and “equitable jurisdiction must be exercised judicially, not arbitrarily.”

“The respondent-wife had categorically refused to disclose her earnings in the U.S. She is gainfully employed. Her conduct was evasive throughout. And yet the Family Court granted ₹70 lakhs without any financial evaluation of the husband or wife.”

The Court further said that the Family Court “ought to have allowed the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence, examined the actual need, income disparity and other relevant factors before awarding any sum.”

High Court Remands Matter For Fresh Adjudication On Permanent Alimony
While allowing the husband’s appeal on the limited issue of alimony, the Bench observed: “Without framing an issue and recording evidence, no such amount could have been awarded.”

Accordingly, the Family Court has been directed to re-hear the issue of permanent alimony, frame appropriate issues, permit both parties to lead evidence, and decide the matter afresh within 10 weeks.

The High Court further directed that the ₹15 lakh amount already deposited by the husband in compliance with earlier interim orders shall now be transferred to the Family Court and invested in a fixed deposit, subject to the final outcome.

“Relief Under Section 25 Is Not Automatic—It Must Be Claimed, Proved And Justified”: Gujarat High Court

Concluding its judgment, the Court made a broader observation on judicial discipline and restraint: “Even though the Family Court exercises equitable powers under the Hindu Marriage Act, any relief—especially of financial nature—must flow from pleadings, be supported by evidence, and rendered after due judicial consideration.”

Date of Decision: 08 April 2025