Permanent Alimony Cannot Be Granted Without Application or Evidence: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside ₹70 Lakh Award, Remands Issue for Fresh Trial

“Equity Cannot Override Due Process”— In a crucial matrimonial ruling Gujarat High Court  quashed a Family Court’s direction to pay ₹70 lakhs as permanent alimony, holding that such a direction cannot be sustained without any application, framing of issues, or appreciation of relevant evidence as required under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak declared: “No issue was framed, no oral or written application was made, and the Family Court proceeded to award permanent alimony without evidentiary basis. Such exercise of discretion is clearly impermissible.”

The appellant-husband had filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was granted by the Family Court, Vadodara, on January 16, 2019, dissolving the marriage. However, while granting the divorce, the court simultaneously directed him to pay ₹70 lakhs as permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act.

Challenging this part of the decree, the appellant contended that no prayer—oral or written—was ever made by the respondent-wife for permanent alimony. It was also argued that no issue was framed and no material evidence was led or evaluated regarding his income or the wife’s capacity to maintain herself.

Absence of Application and Evidence Is Fatal

The High Court accepted the appellant’s argument that the Family Court had acted without jurisdiction in awarding alimony in the absence of any foundational pleadings or proof. It observed: “Reading Section 25 makes it evident that an order for permanent alimony can be passed only ‘on application made to it’... Not even an oral request was made in this case.”

Relying on precedents including Jalendra Padhiary v. Pragati Chhotary, Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar, and Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian, the Court clarified that while equitable reliefs are permissible, they must still be anchored in judicial procedure and factual determination.

The Court emphasized: “Neither the income of the appellant nor of the respondent was properly assessed. The Trial Court failed to even frame an issue or direct parties to lead evidence—this is a clear violation of settled law.”

On Respondent’s Financial Independence and Misuse of U.S. Orders
The appellant had also placed evidence suggesting that the respondent-wife was financially self-sufficient, with rental obligations and assets in the United States. The Trial Court, however, relied on a U.S. custody and support order to assess the appellant’s capacity without evaluating whether that order was relevant or binding in the context of Indian matrimonial law.

The High Court observed: “The Trial Court’s reliance on foreign court orders without first putting the issue to trial and evaluating parties’ actual circumstances was improper. This cannot substitute for judicial fact-finding under Indian law.”

Remand for Fresh Determination of Alimony
Setting aside the ₹70 lakh alimony award, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Family Court, directing that: “The issue of permanent alimony shall be decided afresh by examining the husband and wife orally and through documentary evidence.”

It clarified that no opinion was expressed on whether alimony should be granted or the amount, leaving it entirely for the Family Court to decide within 10 weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.

As an interim measure, ₹15 lakhs earlier deposited by the appellant was directed to be reinvested by the Family Court Nazir in a Fixed Deposit, subject to the final outcome.

This ruling reiterates that while courts are empowered to ensure financial fairness in divorce proceedings, such power must be exercised within the procedural framework of law, especially when it comes to determining substantial amounts as permanent alimony.

Justice Biren Vaishnav summarized: “Permanent alimony, being a substantive and discretionary relief, requires due application of mind, consideration of evidence, and opportunity to both parties. None of these were complied with.”

Date of Decision: April 8, 2025