Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 2148
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, C.J, HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Darshankumar S/o Dhirajlal Kalani – Appellant
Versus
Bhavika Darshankumar Kalani – Respondent
R/First Appeal No. 2916 Of 2019, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 Of 2019
Decided On : 08-04-2025
For The Appellant :Mr Vishal C Mehta, Mr. Mehul Shah, Senior Counsel With Samee A Uraizee, Advocate
For The Respondent: Mr Salil M Thakore.
A court cannot grant permanent alimony without conducting a proper judicial inquiry, which includes framing issues, allowing the parties to lead relevant evidence regarding their financial status, and recording findings to justify the quantum, even if the application for such relief is informal.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 24, 25 and 26 - Permanent alimony - Grant of - Procedure - Trial Court awarded permanent alimony without a formal application, without framing an issue, and without evidence regarding the financial capacity of parties or their needs - Requirement of judicial inquiry - Nature of relief being equitable requires assessment of income, property, and conduct of parties - Court must maintain fairness in procedure even in matrimonial disputes. (Paras 4.2, 4.4, 5, 6)
(B) Appeals - Remand - When lower court decides on significant matters without recording evidence, framing issues, or allowing parties to lead testimony, the decision is unsustainable - Appellate court must ensure principles of natural justice are observed - Essential for the court of first instance to evaluate financial status based on material evidence rather than speculative or external findings. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was preferred against a judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage, specifically challenging the award of permanent alimony. The appellant argued that the Trial Court had granted a substantial sum as permanent alimony despite the absence of an application from the respondent, the failure to frame any issue regarding maintenance, and the absence of a detailed inquiry into the financial circumstances of the parties. The respondent argued that the grant of alimony was discretionary and just, given the financial background of the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The court held that although the provision for granting permanent alimony is a beneficial one, it does not bypass the requirement of a proper judicial determination. Even if the form of an application (written or oral) is flexible, the Trial Court is duty-bound to frame specific issues, allow for the leading of evidence by both parties, and record findings on the financial capacity of the payer and the needs of the recipient. The lack of such procedural fairness renders the award unsustainable.
Issues: The main issues were whether an application (including oral requests) is a mandatory condition for awarding permanent alimony and whether the Trial Court erred in granting such relief without framing issues, hearing evidence, or recording findings on financial capacity.
Ratio Decidendi: While the mode of application for permanent alimony is not strictly defined and can be informal, the court cannot exercise its discretion in a vacuum. It is essential to ensure that both parties have the opportunity to lead evidence and that the court makes an objective assessment based on the financial status and needs of the parties before determining the quantum of maintenance. Failure to frame issues and record evidence violates the principle of fair adjudication.
Result: Appeal allowed; the order granting permanent alimony is quashed and set aside with a direction to the Trial Court to decide the issue of alimony afresh after permitting the parties to lead evidence.
JUDGMENT :
BIREN VAISHNAV, CJ.
1 This appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the original plaintiff in Family Suit No. 61 of 2013 filed before the Family Court at Vadodara. The suit was filed by the appellant under the provisions of Sec.13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for obtaining a decree of divorce. The Family Court by its judgement and decree dated 16.01.2019, allowed the Family Suit and decreed dissolution of the marriage. However, while allowing the suit, the Family Court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.70 lakhs towards permanent alimony to the respondent-wife under Sec.25 of the Act. The appeal has been filed only to the extent that the Family Court directed payment of permanent alimony.
2 We have heard Mr.Mehul Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Sami Uraizee, learned advocate for the appellant. Mr.Shah, learned Senior Counsel, made the following submissions:
2.1 Mr.Shah, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that reading Section 25 of the Act would indicate that for passing a decree and order and for granting permanent alimony, there has to be an application and also the parties have to lead relevant evidence in order to come to a finding on the amount of alimony. He would submit that the Trial Court committed an error in granting permanent alimony without there being an application, without any issue being framed or without discussing any relevant evidence.
2.2 Mr.Shah, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that apart from any written application, the respondent even did not make any oral request or prayer before the lower Court, and therefore, the order and the direction to pay permanent alimony is ex-facie unsustainable in law. Mr.Shah, learned Senior Counsel, would further submit that it was incumbent upon the Family Court to first discuss, appreciate and then record categorical findings as regards the financial capacity of the appellant as well as the respondent-wife and such findings have to be based on appreciation of evidence on all material issues. The learned Court did not even frame any issue with regard to permanent alimony.
2.3 Mr.Shah, learned Senior Counsel, would further submit that the Family Court, without any rational base, assessed the sum of Rs.70 lakhs to be granted to the respondent as permanent alimony. The Family Court did not even discuss the issue with regard to income and property of the appellant as also the status of the parties including that of the respondent. Mr.Shah, would further submit that the respondent-wife, even in her written statement at Exh.48 has nowhere prayed for the grant of any monetary assistance or permanent alimony so as to constitute a prayer thereof.
2.4 Mr.Shah, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that even an application which was preferred by the respondent under Sec.24 of the Act praying for grant of maintenance pendent lite could not be treated as an application under Sec.25. Even otherwise, vide order dated 13.11.2017, the application came to be disposed of by the lower Court categorically observing that the respondent had shown lack of interest to proceed with the same. On this count also, the respondent was not entitled to the alimony as directed by the Trial Court. Mr.Shah, would further submit that it is a settled proposition of law that grant of permanent alimony is an equitable relief. As per the mandate of Sec.25(1), conduct of the parties is also important to evaluate the amount. He would submit that the respondent has levelled false, frivolous and serious allegations against the appellant accusing him of an illicit relationship with other woman.
2.5 According to Mr.Shah, learned Senior Counsel, the respondent in her cross-examination, had refused to disclose material details regarding salary slips from her employment in the United States. This prevented the Family Court from assessing the social and financial status of the respondent and this itself disentitled the respondent from
