Permanent alimony should reflect a fair balance between the financial capacity of the paying spouse and the needs of the receiving spouse, promoting equitable outcomes in divorce settlements.

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from the common order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in M.F.A. No.3747/2015 (FC) and M.F.A. No.2483/2022 (FC). The appellant-wife is before this Court as the High Court has upheld the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and confirmed the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- awarded as permanent alimony.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the appeals are as follows:

3.1. The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married on 27.02.2009. The respondent pursued higher studies in Chandigarh, where the appellant joined him in December 2009 and stayed until July 2010. The appellant claims to have financially supported the respondent during this period. The marriage is childless.

3.2. On 15.06.2011, the respondent filed a petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 [HMA] seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of mental cruelty.

3.3. The appellant filed objections to the petition along with a counterclaim under Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

3.4. In 2014, the appellant moved I.A. No.3 under Section 24 HMA seeking maintenance. The Family Court, by order dated 02.08.2013, awarded her Rs.10,000/- per month. Dissatisfied, she filed Writ Petition No.46786/2013, whereupon the High Court, by order dated 12.09.2014, enhanced the amount to Rs.25,000/- per month.

3.5. By order dated 25.04.2015, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce and awarded Rs.15,00,000/- as permanent alimony.

3.6. Aggrieved, the appellant filed M.F.A. No.3747/2015 to set aside the divorce decree, and M.F.A. No.2483/2022 against dismissal of her counterclaim. The respondent filed M.F.A. No.5015/2015 challenging the quantum of alimony.

3.7. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed all three appeals. It upheld the grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty, noting that while the wife expressed willingness to resume marital life, the husband was unwilling. The Court observed that the husband, a doctor by profession, and the wife, a qualified engineer now practising as an advocate, were both capable individuals, and held that the Rs.15,00,000/- awarded as alimony by the Family Court was appropriate.

3.8. The appellant-wife has preferred the present appeals.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Notice in these appeals was issued only on the question of alimony.

6. The Family Court awarded Rs.15,00,000/- as permanent alimony, which the High Court upheld. We directed both parties to file affidavits disclosing their income and liabilities to enable assessment of all relevant factors.

7. The respondent is a doctor earning approximately Rs.1,40,000/- per month from his employment. The appellant holds an M.Tech (Computer Science) and an LL.B. degree. She claims to be presently unemployed.

8. The respondent has produced his Income Tax Returns reflecting a taxable income of around Rs.1.4 lakhs per month, along with his bank statements. The appellant asserts that in the year 2010, the respondent purchased property in his own name.

9. Determination of alimony requires consideration of multiple factors. It is evident from the material on record that the respondent has the capacity to pay a higher amount than that awarded by the Family Court. At the same time, although the appellant claims to be unemployed, she is highly qualified and has the ability to earn and sustain herself. She is not in a state of acute economic deprivation. A balanced approach, weighing the respondent’s capacity and the appellant’s needs, must therefore be adopted.

10. Having considered the submissions and the evidence on