Permanent Alimony Not Meant To Equalise Wealth: Karnataka High Court Awards Rs 50 Lakh To Wife

Bengaluru, August 24: The Karnataka High Court has upheld a divorce decree granted on grounds of cruelty while significantly reducing the permanent alimony awarded to the wife from ₹2 crore to ₹50 lakh. A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan held that permanent alimony is intended to provide reasonable maintenance, not to equalise the wealth or assets of the spouses.

From College Romance to Courtroom Battle

The parties, who were college mates, married on May 23, 2011, in Mangaluru and later moved to the United Kingdom. Two daughters were born from the union. However, the relationship soured on foreign soil, leading to a series of matrimonial and parental disputes in both India and the UK.

The wife, a qualified medical professional, sought divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of cruelty, along with permanent alimony of ₹5 crore. She alleged physical and mental cruelty, controlling behaviour, interference with her career, and abusive conduct toward her parents. The husband denied the allegations, claiming he supported her education and filed a counterclaim for restitution of conjugal rights.

The Family Court at Mangaluru dissolved the marriage in January 2026, dismissed the husband’s counterclaim, and awarded ₹2 crore as permanent alimony, besides ₹25,000 per month for child maintenance with a biennial enhancement of ₹5,000.

WhatsApp Conversations Seal the Case

The High Court examined the evidence, including extensive WhatsApp chats. The Bench noted that the wife’s version received substantial support from contemporaneous communications, which contained admissions and expressions of regret by the husband regarding his conduct. The Court observed that the evidence had to be considered cumulatively, not by isolating individual incidents.

“The material on record discloses that the disputes did not end with the earlier reconciliation. The allegations relating to the respondent's conduct, the acrimony between the parties, the disputes concerning the children and the subsequent proceedings demonstrate that the discord continued and became progressively more serious,” the Court noted.

The Bench also rejected the argument that earlier acts of cruelty were condoned by subsequent cohabitation, holding that subsequent conduct could revive the cause of action.

Alimony: Not a Windfall but a Safety Net

While upholding the divorce, the High Court disagreed with the quantum of permanent alimony. It observed that the wife was a qualified medical professional with an independent source of income and her own financial assets. The husband earned approximately ₹70 lakh per annum, while the wife earned ₹1.22 lakh net per month.

“Permanent alimony is not intended to equalise the assets or wealth of the parties, but to ensure that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable dignity and in accordance with the circumstances of the case,” the Bench stated.

The Court reduced the alimony to ₹50 lakh, payable within three months, failing which it will carry 6% interest per annum. It also took into account the husband’s substantial litigation expenses in the UK (approximately ₹84 lakh) and his continuing financial obligations.

Child Maintenance and Custody

Separately, the Court directed the husband to pay ₹25,000 per month for each child, totalling ₹50,000 per month, with an annual enhancement of ₹5,000 per child until majority. The mother was granted exclusive physical custody, subject to the father’s visitation rights every Saturday and Sunday for three hours each day in the mother’s presence.

The Court also directed that the children shall not be relocated outside India without prior intimation and court orders, and that the husband shall contribute reasonably to their marriage expenses at the appropriate time.

Key Observations from the Judgment

“A marriage is expected to provide companionship, trust and emotional security; it cannot be reduced to a continuing source of litigation, allegations and counter-allegations.”

“The object of matrimonial jurisdiction is not to perpetuate a relationship which has become a continuing source of anguish and litigation, but to secure justice between the parties in accordance with law.”

“Permanent alimony is not intended to equalise the assets or wealth of the parties, but to ensure that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable dignity.”

Final Verdict

The appeal was disposed of with the divorce decree upheld. The High Court modified the Family Court’s financial directions, reducing permanent alimony to ₹50 lakh and fixing monthly child maintenance at ₹25,000 per child with annual increments. Both parties were directed to prioritise the welfare and stability of their children.