IMPORTANT POINT
Quantum of Permanent alimony – Post-divorce, wife is entitled to live a life consistent with standard of living she was accustomed to during subsistence of marriage – Obligation of husband to ensure that wife is able to live with dignity does not come to an end merely on the ground that she is educated or has parental support.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant – wife, aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur¹[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”], in First Appeal No. 156 of 2016, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant – wife against the judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal²[Hereinafter referred to as “the Family Court”] in Civil Suit No. 985-A/2012 insofar as it related to the grant of permanent alimony of Rs.15,000/- per month.

2. The record of proceedings discloses that the matter was initially referred to the Mediation Centre attached to the Principal Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. However, the mediation ended in failure. Thereafter, the parties pursued their respective remedies before this Court.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant –wife as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –husband.

4. The undisputed facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.11.1994 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born on 22.11.1997. Owing to matrimonial disputes that arose between them, the parties started living separately since 2011. Subsequently, the respondent – husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. After considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court passed a decree of divorce and in addition thereto, awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 15,000/- per month along with a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant – wife. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded, the appellant – wife preferred First Appeal No. 156 of 2016 before the High Court seeking enhancement. The High Court dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant – wife is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant – wife submits that the respondent – husband is a doctor by profession and earns approximately Rs.1,60,000/- per month. It is further submitted that before the Family Court, the respondent had admitted that he was also engaged in private practice and was receiving rental income, which material aspects were not duly considered by the High Court. It is also urged that the respondent has remarried, is leading an affluent lifestyle, and is financially capable of paying enhanced maintenance. Consequently, the permanent alimony of Rs. 15,000/- per month is grossly inadequate and requires enhancement.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – husband submits that the appellant – wife is a highly qualified woman and is capable of maintaining herself. It is contended that the respondent is bearing the educational expenses of their son and has been regular in paying maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the appellant – wife. It is further submitted that the respondent’s second marriage has also broken down and that he is not financially in a position to pay more than Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, according to the respondent, no case for enhancement is made out and the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal.

7. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant – wife denied the respondent’s claim that he has been maintaining the son or bearing his educational expenses. It is further submitted that during the mediation proceedings, the respondent – husband had agreed to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month towards permanent alimony, but subsequently resiled from the said stand in his counter affidavit by citing untenable reasons for denying enhancement.

8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record, including the pay certificate of the respondent - husba