Permanent Alimony Is Not Meant To Equalise Wealth: Karnataka HC [Read Judgment]

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a husband's appeal against a Family Court decree dissolving his marriage on the ground of cruelty, while substantially reducing the permanent alimony awarded to the wife from Rs.2 crore to Rs.50 lakh, and retaining the monthly maintenance directed for the couple's two minor daughters.

Justices D K Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan were hearing a Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the husband, X, under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act against a judgment and decree of the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, which had allowed the wife Y's petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and dismissed the husband's counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights.

As recorded by the Bench, the parties, who were college mates, married at Mangalore in 2011 and later moved to the United Kingdom, where two daughters were born to them. Their relationship deteriorated on foreign soil, giving rise to serious disputes, and the parties eventually returned to India, where the wife sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and permanent alimony of Rs.5 crore, while the husband resisted the petition and sought restitution of conjugal rights.

The wife alleged that the husband subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, objected to her career and higher education, was abusive towards her and her parents, and repeatedly and falsely attributed mental illness to her, including in child-custody proceedings, relying substantially on WhatsApp conversations to demonstrate the discord. The husband denied the allegations, contended that the parties had lived happily for years and travelled extensively together, attributed the difficulties to the wife's own psychological issues and the interference of her relatives, and disputed the claim for alimony on the ground that she was a highly qualified, independently employed medical professional with substantial assets of her own.

The Family Court had found that the WhatsApp conversations disclosed admissions by the husband of physical assault and unsubstantiated allegations of mental illness against the wife, and, considering the proved incidents cumulatively, held that the cruelty was established notwithstanding an intervening period of reconciliation between the parties. It accordingly granted the divorce, dismissed the restitution claim, and awarded Rs.2 crore as permanent alimony along with Rs.25,000 per month per child, with periodic enhancement.

Before the High Court, learned Senior Counsel for the husband argued that the finding of cruelty was based on a selective and incomplete appreciation of the electronic evidence, that acts of cruelty prior to the parties' reconciliation and resumed cohabitation stood condoned, and that the alimony award of Rs.2 crore was excessive, disproportionate and amounted to an impermissible equalisation of wealth rather than a needs-based determination, given the wife's independent professional income and assets.

Rejecting the challenge to the finding of cruelty, the Bench held that the wife's version was corroborated by contemporaneous WhatsApp communications, including admissions and expressions of regret by the husband, and that the evidence had to be assessed cumulatively rather than by isolating individual incidents. The Court observed that although the parties had briefly reconciled after counselling, this did not obliterate the subsequent conduct, and that the dispute's trajectory commencing at Mangaluru, continuing in the United Kingdom, and finally reaching the High Court itself reflected the extent to which the matrimonial bond had broken down. 

The Bench observed that "the object of matrimonial jurisdiction is not to perpetuate a relationship which has become a continuing source of anguish and litigation, but to secure justice between the parties in accordance with law."

On the question of alimony, the Court held, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajnesh v. Neha, Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg and Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian, that permanent alimony is intended to prevent destitution and ensure reasonable comfort, not to equalise the wealth of the parties, and that the wife's professional qualification and independent earning capacity distinguished her case from that of a wife with no means of livelihood. Accordingly, the Bench reduced the permanent alimony from Rs.2 crore to Rs.50 lakh, payable within three months with 6% interest on delay, while separately retaining the monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000 per child, with annual enhancement of Rs.5,000 per child, holding that child maintenance stood on a different footing from the wife's alimony claim.

The Court further directed that the wife would retain exclusive physical custody of the children, granted the husband weekend visitation of three hours each day in her presence, along with reasonable telephonic or video access, directed him to contribute towards the children's future marriage expenses, and restrained the wife from permanently relocating the children outside India without prior intimation to the husband and appropriate court orders where required. Both parties were directed to refrain from disparaging each other before the children and to ensure the children's continued healthy relationship with both parents.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Sri Joseph Anthony, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Sri Uday Holla, Senior Counsel for Sri K. Chandrakanth Ariga, Advocate.

Case Title: X vs. Y, Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1575/2026 (FC)

[Read Judgment]