Gujarat HC Remands Alimony Case: Application, Evidence, and Issue Framing Essential Under Hindu Marriage Act - 2025-04-09

Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Family Court's Alimony Order, Emphasizing Need for Application and Evidence

Ahmedabad, April 8, 2025 – The Gujarat High Court, in a recent judgment, has set aside an order by a Family Court in Vadodara directing a husband to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 70 lakhs to his estranged wife. The High Court bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav and Mr. Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak, remanded the matter back to the Family Court, stressing the necessity for a proper application, framing of issues, and evaluation of evidence before awarding permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Case Background: Appeal Against Alimony in Divorce Decree

The case arose from a First Appeal filed by Darshankumar Dhirajlal Kalani against a Family Court’s decree that granted him a divorce from Bhavika Darshankumar Kalani under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. While the divorce itself was allowed, Mr. Kalani appealed specifically against the Family Court's directive to pay Rs. 70 lakhs as permanent alimony to his wife, Ms. Bhavika Kalani, under Section 25 of the Act.

Appellant's Arguments: Lack of Application and Evidence

Represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Mehul Shah, the appellant argued that the Family Court erred in awarding permanent alimony without a formal application from the respondent-wife. Mr. Shah contended that Section 25 requires an 'application' for permanent alimony and that neither a written application nor even an oral request was made by Ms. Kalani before the Family Court. He further argued that the Family Court failed to frame an issue regarding permanent alimony, discuss relevant evidence, or record findings on the financial capacities of both parties.

Mr. Shah highlighted that Ms. Kalani, in her written statement, had not prayed for alimony. He also argued that a dismissed application for maintenance pendente lite (under Section 24) could not be considered as an application for permanent alimony. Furthermore, he pointed to Ms. Kalani's refusal to disclose salary details from her employment in the United States, suggesting she was financially independent and not entitled to alimony. Mr. Shah cited precedents including Jalendra Padhiary Vs. Pragati Chhotary and Vinny Paramvir Parmar Vs. Paramvir Parmar to support his arguments regarding the procedural and evidentiary requirements for granting alimony.

Respondent's Counter Arguments: No Strict Formality Required

Representing the respondent-wife, Ms. Bhavika Kalani, Mr. Salil Thakore argued that the Family Court's alimony order was justified. He contended that Section 25 does not mandate a written application and that the provision is beneficent, allowing for even oral applications. Mr. Thakore cited several judgments, including Amutha Vs. A.R.Subramanian and Vijayashree Vs. Nishant Arvind Kale , asserting that courts have awarded maintenance even without formal applications. He argued that evidence regarding Mr. Kalani's income was on record and that both parties were aware of the alimony issue. Mr. Thakore emphasized that a technical view should be avoided in family matters. He presented evidence of Mr. Kalani’s high income from his employment in the US and his financial capacity demonstrated by child support payments ordered by a US court, suggesting that Rs. 70 lakhs was a reasonable alimony amount.

High Court's Observations and Decision: Emphasis on Due Process

The High Court acknowledged the divergent views on the necessity of a formal application for permanent alimony. Referencing precedents, the court noted that while a strictly written application may not be mandatory, "there has to be an application to be made for such purposes." The bench observed that even if an oral request could suffice, in this case, "not even an oral request for permanent alimony was made."

Crucially, the High Court pointed out the Family Court's failure to properly assess evidence and frame issues related to alimony:

> "Neither was there an application, oral or written, or a written statement that the wife was unable to maintain herself… but without framing an issue thereon and directing oral evidence be recorded either at the hands of the husband or the respondent… no figure based on the U.S Courts without putting the issue for being dealt with on the basis of leading evidence, based on the suggested parameters, could have been awarded."

Based on these observations, the High Court quashed the Family Court's alimony order and remanded the case. The Family Court has been directed to re-examine the issue of permanent alimony, ensuring both parties are given the opportunity to present oral and documentary evidence. The High Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the alimony claim itself, leaving the quantum and entitlement to be decided afresh by the Family Court after proper evidence and due process. The Rs. 15 lakh deposited by the appellant was ordered to be transferred to the Family Court for further direction.

This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and evidentiary basis when courts determine permanent alimony in matrimonial disputes, even within the flexible framework of family law proceedings.