Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 22340
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K.AGRAWAL, SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT, JJ
Tarachand Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Akansha Sahu – Respondent
FA(MAT) No. 3 of 2024
For Respondent/Wife: Mr. K.K. Pandey and Mr. Rakesh
Kumar Manikpuri, Advocates
A court cannot concurrently award both a lump-sum permanent alimony and monthly maintenance under the governing marital laws. Once a gross sum is awarded, the court lacks the jurisdiction to simultaneously impose periodic maintenance payments, as the statute provides separate mechanisms for modification based on changed circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 25(1), (2) and (3) - Permanent alimony and maintenance - Grant of - Whether a court can concurrently award both monthly maintenance and a gross sum as permanent alimony - Periodical as well as gross sum, both cannot be awarded at a time - The court is empowered to award either a gross sum or direct monthly or other periodical payments to be made - Once the court exercises jurisdiction to award permanent alimony, granting additional monthly maintenance is legally impermissible - The remedy for changes in circumstances lies under the specified sub-sections, which allow for the modification of the original order. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - The court sitting in appeal must ensure orders are consistent with legal provisions - Where an order is fundamentally unsupported by the statutory framework regarding financial support, it is liable to be set aside within the limits of the court's jurisdiction. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The parties were granted a decree of divorce by the trial court, which also awarded both a lump sum amount as permanent alimony and a monthly maintenance payment until remarriage. Both parties challenged the order, though they did not contest the divorce grant itself. The dispute focused on the legal validity of receiving both permanent alimony and monthly maintenance concurrently.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that while it is discretionary to award either a gross sum or periodical payments, both cannot be granted simultaneously under the governing statutory framework. The monthly maintenance component was set aside, while the lump sum alimony was maintained, with the trial court directed to consider any future application for enhancement based on an appropriate inquiry into the financial status of the parties.
Issues: Whether the trial court is justified in awarding regular monthly maintenance after having already granted a gross sum as permanent alimony pursuant to the statutory provisions governing marital dissolution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the statutory framework does not permit the concurrent award of both a gross sum and periodic maintenance. The statute provides a procedural mechanism for subsequent modification should circumstances change, thereby precluding the creation of multiple simultaneous financial obligations.
Result: Appeals disposed of; monthly maintenance order set aside; liberty granted to seek enhancement of permanent alimony.
1. Since common question of law and facts is involved in both of these appeals and since both of them have been filed being aggrieved by a common order, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The appellant/husband as well as the respondent/wife, both have questioned the impugned judgment and decree dated 15/12/2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Link Court Family Court Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit No. 04-A/2021 whereby application for divorce filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1955”) has been granted and the Family Court has awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/- in favour of the respondent/wife along with monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- till her remarriage.
3. At the outset, Mr. Ravindra Sharma as well as Mr. K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the parties would submit that so far as decree for divorce is concerned, both the parties have accepted and agreed to it and they have only questioned the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of grant of permanent alimony and monthly maintenance in favour of the respondent/wife.
4. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/husband, would submit that once permanent alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/- had been awarded in favour of the respondent/wife, the Family Court then could not have granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- in her favour till her remarriage, as such, the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of grant of monthly maintenance in favour of the respondent/wife is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent/wife, would submit that though the Family Court has rightly granted permanent alimony as well as monthly maintenance in favour of the respondent/wife, however, the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- as permanent alimony as well as the sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance is rather on the lower side and both deserve to be enhanced.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.
7. The question that arises for consideration herein is, “whether the Family Court is justified in granting monthly maintenance after having already granted permanent alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/- in favour of the respondent/wife ?”
8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the provision contained under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1955, which states as under :-
“25. Permanent alimony and maintenance. –
(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a change on the immovable property of the respondent.”
9. The aforesaid provision empowers the court to award for the maintenance and support of the applicant a gross sum or to direct monthly or other periodical payments to be made by the respondent to the applicant. The matter is of the discretion of the court and ordinarily, the court as well as the parties prefer that the payments should be periodical or a gross sum is generally awarded after making an inquiry on such application filed under Section 25 of the Act of 1955, but periodical as well as gross sum, both cannot be awarded at a time.
10. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Rakesh Malhotra v. Krishna Malhotra , (1 (2020) 14 SCC 150)
