Permanent alimony under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act requires an application to be filed; without it, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the claim.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(1) of Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, the Act of 1955), the appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 10/01/2019 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Family Court, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 138-A/2014 whereby decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion enumerated under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act of 1955 has been passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The aforesaid question arises on the following factual backdrop :-

(a) The marriage of appellant/defendant/wife and respondent/plaintiff/husband was solemnized on 19/05/2013 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Thereafter, on account of matrimonial discord between them, appellant/defendant left her matrimonial home which led the respondent/plaintiff to file application for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 as back as on 30/10/2014. (b) Learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, by its impugned judgment and decree dated 10/01/2019 (Annexure A/1) granted decree for divorce in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the suit or at the time of granting decree, the appellant/defendant did not file any application under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1955 for grant of permanent alimony and as such, the question of grant of permanent alimony was not looked into by the Family Court while granting decree for divorce in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

3. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, would submit that during mediation, respondent/plaintiff disclosed that he has already entered into second marriage and is blessed with a daughter, now aged about 6 years, therefore, the appellant/defendant is not pressing the appeal for consideration on merits and only the question of permanent alimony may be decided and she may be granted permanent alimony under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1955. Appellant/defendant has also filed affidavit as required in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh v. Neha , (2021) 2 SCC 324 which has been followed recently in the matter of Jiya v. Kuldeep , AIR 2025 SC 781 .

4. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, would oppose the prayer for grant of permanent alimony to the appellant/defendant in absence of separate application filed by the appellant/defendant either before the Family Court or in this appeal before this Court. He would further submit that prior to this stage, no whisper has been made by the appellant/defendant for grant of permanent alimony and even otherwise, grant of permanent alimony requires recording of oral and documentary evidence in that regard, as such, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. Since the appellant/defendant is not questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court granting decree for divorce in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on merits, the question that remains for consideration is, “whether the appellant/defendant is entitled for grant of permanent alimony under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1955 ?”

7. In order to raise the plea at the Bar, it would be appropriate