-
by sayum
09 October 2026 12:19 AM
"The wife did not make any application seeking alimony before the Family Court, nor did she place any evidence on record in support of such claim. In such circumstances, the claim for alimony cannot appropriately be adjudicated by this Court for the first time in appellate jurisdiction." Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an appellate court cannot entertain a claim for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) if the party failed to move an application or lead evidence regarding their financial status before the trial court.
A division bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sushma Sawant observed that while the law provides for a liberal application of maintenance provisions, the jurisdictional requirement of an application and foundational evidence must be satisfied at the first instance.
The appellant-wife challenged a Family Court decree granting divorce to her husband on the ground of cruelty. The husband, a government employee, alleged that the wife had abandoned the matrimonial home, harassed his parents, and engaged in an illicit relationship. Conversely, the wife denied these allegations, claiming she was subjected to harassment over dowry demands and that the husband himself was involved in extramarital affairs.
The primary question before the court was whether the Family Court was justified in granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the appellate court could grant permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HMA despite the appellant having failed to file an application or lead evidence on income and property before the trial court.
The bench observed that the matrimonial relationship had been fraught with discord, marked by severe mutual allegations of character assassination. Regarding the cruelty charge, the court noted that the wife’s conduct, including suggestions made during cross-examination regarding an apology for an alleged illicit relationship, lent credibility to the husband’s version of events.
Court Defines Cruelty Contextually
The court reaffirmed that cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA lacks a static definition. Relying on the Supreme Court’s observations in Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi and Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni, the judges held that cruelty must be assessed through the prism of the parties' specific behavioral patterns and the overall impact on the matrimonial bond.
"Category Of Cruelty Is Not Exhaustive"
The court emphasized that in determining mental cruelty, acts, omissions, gestures, and even silence can be considered if they render the continuation of the marriage impossible. In this case, the cumulative conduct of the wife, combined with the lack of bona fide intent to resume cohabitation, justified the grant of divorce.
Procedural Bar Under Section 25 HMA
Addressing the appellant's request for permanent alimony, the court underscored that Section 25 mandates that the court must have regard to the income and property of both parties. Although both parties had filed affidavits as per the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha, the wife’s failure to initiate the claim during the trial deprived the court of the necessary record to assess the quantum of maintenance.
"No Evidence Led For Adjudication"
The bench clarified that an appellate court cannot bridge evidentiary gaps that should have been filled by the parties before the Family Court. Without a primary application and evidence supporting the financial requirements and capacity of the parties, the claim for permanent alimony remains premature for the appellate stage.
Court Grants Liberty To Move Fresh Application
The court ultimately affirmed the decree of divorce but refused to adjudicate the alimony claim. It explicitly granted the appellant liberty to file a fresh, appropriate application under Section 25 of the HMA before the competent court, where the merits of her financial claim can be examined with proper evidence.
Date of Decision: 24 September 2026
