Without an Application, No Alimony — Permanent Alimony Cannot Be Granted Without Express Demand: Madhya Pradesh High Court

“At least an application demanding permanent alimony is required, that may be either in a written statement or by a separate application.” — In a notable judgment categorically held that permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be granted without there being a formal application by the claimant. The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Gajendra Singh harmonized conflicting judicial views and ruled that the absence of a formal or even oral prayer for permanent alimony renders any such award unsustainable.

Setting aside the trial court’s direction to the husband to pay ₹12,000 per month as permanent alimony, the Court reaffirmed the necessity of an express application, either through a written statement or by a separate application, before the Court could exercise power under Section 25.

The appellant-husband had instituted a suit under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The respondent-wife remained ex-parte throughout the proceedings. The trial court, while granting the decree of divorce, simultaneously awarded ₹12,000 per month as permanent alimony to the wife under Section 25, even though no application — written or oral — was made by the wife.

Aggrieved by this, the husband approached the High Court, challenging only the order relating to permanent alimony. The respondent-wife chose not to appear in the appellate proceedings.

The Division Bench confronted the fundamental question: “Can the Court grant permanent alimony under Section 25 without there being any formal application?”

Answering this, Justice Gajendra Singh remarked emphatically, “Without demanding permanent alimony in the written statement or by a separate application, the learned Trial Court would not have granted permanent alimony to the respondent/wife.” The Court observed that neither the records nor any evidence reflected that the wife had sought alimony, yet the trial court awarded it.

The Bench reconciled the conflicting positions within the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s own jurisprudence by expressly following the binding ratio laid down in Abhishek Parashar v. Neha Parashar, 2023 (1) MPLJ 648, which had held that an application is mandatory.

The Court clarified, “At least an application demanding permanent alimony is required, that may be either in a written statement or by a separate application.”

Earlier Judgments Harmonized — Principle of Judicial Discipline Applied
The Court took the opportunity to resolve the inconsistent approaches previously adopted by different benches. While some rulings like Rituraj Singh and Dharmendra Tiwari suggested that no formal application was necessary, the present bench found these judgments to be rendered per incuriam as they had failed to consider binding precedents such as Jitbandhan v. Jitendra Bai, 1982 MPWN SN 84 and Chhaya Kshatriya v. Ramesh Kshatriya, 1998 (1) MPLJ 384.

Applying the principle of judicial discipline, the Court observed, “In case of conflict between judgments of two Division Benches of equal strength, the decision of earlier Division Bench shall be followed.” Accordingly, the Court gave primacy to the earlier consistent view mandating a formal application for alimony.

The Court further criticized the trial court for bypassing the statutory requirement of assessing relevant factors such as the financial position, conduct, and living standards of both parties as laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinny Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar, AIR 2011 SC 2748. Justice Singh highlighted, “Parties may lead oral and documentary evidence with respect to income, expenditure, standard of living, etc., before the Court concerned, for fixing the permanent alimony payable to the spouse.”

The absence of any such inquiry further vitiated the trial court’s order.

Finding the award of permanent alimony unsustainable in law and fact, the Court unambiguously held, “Para 17(2) of the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.07.2023 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.”

The appeal was accordingly allowed, to the extent of setting aside the award of alimony, and the decree was modified.

This judgment reinforces the doctrine that matrimonial reliefs under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be granted mechanically or in the absence of a formal application. It reaffirms judicial discipline by upholding earlier binding precedents and clarifies that financial reliefs in matrimonial disputes must always be based on a proper pleadings and assessment.

The Bench prudently summarized the law by holding, “Thus, from the judgment of this Court, it is clear that at least an application demanding permanent alimony is required.”

Date of Decision: 27th March 2025