Permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, is an equitable relief aimed at securing long-term financial stability and dignified sustenance, which must be determined by balancing the payer's stable earning capacity against the recipient's economic vulnerability and the standard of living during the marriage.

By the Court (Per: Arun Monga, J)

1. By this common judgment and order, the present two cross appeals are being adjudicated together, as both arise from the same judgment and decree dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Jodhpur. By the said judgment, the marriage between the parties was dissolved, and the husband was directed to pay permanent alimony of ₹25,00,000/- to the wife.

2. The wife has challenged the quantum of alimony on the ground that it is grossly inadequate, whereas the husband, by way of a cross-appeal, has assailed the same as being excessive. Dissolution of marriage is not under challenge by either side. The wife, in her appeal, seeks enhancement of the permanent alimony to at least ₹2 crore, having regard to the financial status of the husband as asserted by her. In this common order parties are being addressed as per the memo of parties filed by the wife.

FACTUAL NARRATIVE

3. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.04.1994 at Marwar Junction in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Irreconcilable differences arose leading to the appellant/wife, Smt. Shobha Kanwar, instituting a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 02.03.2015 against the respondent husband, Narpat Singh. Out of the wedlock, two sons, Govind Singh and Himanshu Singh, were born, who are now adults.

3.1. It is the case of the appellant that at the time of marriage, her parental family provided gifts, household articles, and streedhan, including gold and silver ornaments, beyond their financial capacity. These articles, according to her, remain in the possession of the respondent and his family. It is further alleged that the respondent and his family were dissatisfied with the dowry and subjected her to taunts and harassment on that account.

3.2. The appellant has further averred that after the year 2003, the demands of the respondent and his family escalated, along with the intensity of harassment. In 2004, the respondent, along with his parents and younger brother, allegedly conspired to compel her to persuade her father to sell his residential house at Marwar Junction as well as agricultural land, and to hand over the sale proceeds to finance the business ventures of the respondent’s brothers. Upon her refusal, she was allegedly subjected to severe harassment and hostility, and despite repeated efforts at reconciliation, the respondent and his family remained adamant in their demands.

3.3. It is further alleged that in 2009, proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 CrPC were initiated before the SDO, Pali, against the respondent and his family. However, no effective action was taken, allegedly on account of the respondent’s position as a medical officer.

3.4. The appellant has also relied upon photographs to substantiate allegations of physical assault. During the said proceedings, it is alleged that the respondent forcibly took away their minor son, Himanshu Singh.

3.5. The appellant has specifically alleged that on 01.05.2009, she was physically assaulted by the respondent at the government quarters, resulting in injuries, and was threatened with death and forcibly driven out of the matrimonial home along with the children. She thereafter obtained medical treatment and an injury report. Since that date, the respondent has allegedly neither maintained nor cared for her and the children. Efforts at reconci