Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2479
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Gajendra Singh, JJ
Ghanshyam Baser – Appellant
Versus
Jyoti – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL No. 1793 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tushar Bhedasgaonkar
The Trial Court lacks jurisdiction to award permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the total absence of any formal application or even an oral request/plea for maintenance by the respondent spouse.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 25 - Permanent alimony - Requirement of application - Whether court can grant maintenance in absence of any pleading or formal application - Held, while the form of application (oral or written) may be flexible, the spouse seeking alimony must at least make a request for such relief, either in the written statement or via a separate application - Absence of any such prayer precludes the court from granting permanent alimony.
Facts of the case:
The appellant husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was granted ex-parte. The trial court, while passing the decree of divorce, further directed the appellant to pay Rs.12,000/- per month as permanent alimony under Section 25, despite the respondent-wife remaining ex-parte and having made no application for alimony.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the trial court's order granting permanent alimony without any formal application or even a recorded request by the respondent-wife in the pleadings was unsustainable and contrary to the requirement of Section 25, which predicates the power of the court on an "application made to it".
Issues: Whether a Trial Court can grant permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the absence of any written or oral application or prayer made by the respondent spouse.
Ratio Decidendi: Even if a liberal interpretation of Section 25 is taken—recognizing that the application need not be a formal separate document but can be a request in the written statement—the court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to grant alimony where no such prayer or request has been made by the concerned party at all. Result : Appeal allowed; order for maintenance quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. divorce granted but maintenance order challenged due to lack of application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. analysis of judicial precedents requiring a prayer/application for alimony. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. permanent alimony order quashed for lack of formal request by respondent. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
This first appeal filed under Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been preferred by the husband, being partially aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2023 passed in RCS HM No.12-A/2023 by First Additional Judge, Garoth, District Mandsaur, under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant/husband has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent/wife before the 7th of every month.
2. Facts in brief are that appellant/husband preferred an application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage solemnized on 08.05.2009 as per Hindu Rituals. The application was filed on 23.03.2023 & respondent/wife remained ex-parte before the trial Court and after recording the evidence of the appellant/husband trial Court granted the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as mentioned in Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also passed an order under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. Only the order under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is under challenge.
4. Respondent/wife has not marked her presence before this Court as well.
5. Perusal of the record discloses that no application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was before the trial Court.
6. On this point, whether without filing a formal application u/S 25 of the HMA, husband can be directed to pay the alimony? In this regard, the High Court of Madras in the case of Umarani Vs. D. Vivekannandan , 2000 (II) CTC 449, in paragraph-10 of the judgement has held that "the Act also does not say that there should be a written application. It only says that an application made to it. It can also be on the basis of oral application." Thus, held that u/S 25 of the HMA, no formal application is required.
7. The High Court of Bombay in the case of Vijayashree D/o Ganesh Ingle Vs. Dr. Nishant Arvind Kale , 2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 389 , in paragraphs-8 to 12 of the judgement has held as under :-
"8. With regard to question under consideration before this court, various other High Courts including this High Court have held that the word 'application' as referred to in Section 25 of the Act i.e. 'on application made to it' does not specify as to whether it is oral application or application in writing. It is also held that broader view of Section 25 of the Act is to be taken considering the object and purpose for inclusion of this provision in the Act.
9. The Madras High Court in the case of Umarani Vs. D. Vivekannandan reported in 2000 SCC Online Mad 50 held that there is no need of written application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and permanent alimony and maintenance can be granted on the basis of oral application. The relevant para No. 10 in this judgment reads thus :
"10. It is true that Section 25 of the Act contemplates an application for the said purpose. When the lower court has not disposed of Section 24 application in time and has disposed of along with the main application, it should have disposed of the application under Section 25 also. Therefore, one more litigation could be avoided and on the basis of very same order, the maintenance could be provided for the wife and child. From the conduct of the respondent, it is clear that he will not pay the maintenance which is legally due to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, asking the petitioner to file another application under Section 25 or asking to file a separate suit and again seeking indulgence of the Court below will be harsh. The Act also does not say that there should a written application. It only says that
