The Telangana High Court held that permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act requires a separate application and cannot be granted automatically in divorce proceedings. The Court ruled formal pleading is necessary before awarding maintenance.
The Telangana High Court has ruled that permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be granted only if the claimant files a separate application before the competent court. The Court further stated that permanent alimony is not an automatic outcome of divorce proceedings and that courts cannot award it without a formal, pleadable prayer.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao made these observations while deciding a family court appeal filed by a wife challenging the dismissal of her petition seeking annulment of marriage on the ground of alleged fraud and misrepresentation by her husband.
Background of the case
The appellant-wife approached the Family Court under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of nullity. She claimed the marriage was arranged through an online matrimonial platform, where the husband allegedly stated his date of birth as February 9, 1981.
According to her, after the marriage she later came to know that the husband’s actual date of birth was February 9, 1974. She argued that horoscope matching was carried out using the incorrect date of birth and that her consent was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud. She further stated that she became aware of the correct date of birth only during the process of marriage registration before the Sub-Registrar, after which she sought annulment.
The Family Court dismissed her petition, leading her to file the present appeal before the High Court.
During the pendency of the appeal, both parties filed affidavits before the High Court indicating that they no longer wished to continue the marital relationship.
The wife stated that she was willing to withdraw the pending criminal and domestic violence proceedings, provided there was a fair financial settlement and return of her gold ornaments. The husband, in response, indicated that he would not oppose the appeal if those proceedings were withdrawn.
Taking note of the parties’ stand, the High Court observed that reconciliation was not possible and that the marriage had effectively broken down.
The Bench also noted that disputes regarding return of gold ornaments, financial settlement, and withdrawal of criminal proceedings had surfaced only during the appeal stage and were not pleaded or adjudicated before the Family Court. Since these issues involved disputed questions of fact, the Court declined to examine them in appellate proceedings, stating they should be pursued before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Legal Issues: Whether the court could grant permanent alimony in the appeal even though the wife had not filed any separate application under Section 25?
Observations of the High Court
Rejecting the wife’s argument, the Court held that the plain statutory wording of Section 25 clearly requires an independent application seeking permanent alimony. The Court observed:
“A bare reading of Section 25 clearly indicates that a separate application is required to be made for seeking permanent alimony.”
It further held:
“In the present case, in the absence of a specific application, we cannot award permanent alimony to the appellant/wife.”
The Court said that merely raising the issue during arguments or through affidavits filed in appeal cannot replace the requirement of filing a Section 25 application.
The High Court relied on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which similarly held that permanent alimony cannot be awarded unless a specific application seeking such relief is filed. The Bench reiterated that procedural compliance is mandatory and courts cannot bypass the statutory requirement by granting permanent alimony in the absence of a formal claim.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court’s order, and dissolved the marriage by granting a decree of divorce. However, it declined to grant permanent alimony, since no application under Section 25 had been filed.
The Bench clarified that the wife remains free to pursue appropriate remedies for permanent alimony and recovery of her gold ornaments before the competent forum, including in the domestic violence proceedings already pending between the parties.
Overall, the ruling emphasizes that Section 25 operates as a procedural precondition and that permanent alimony is not an automatic relief that can be granted merely because matrimonial proceedings result in divorce.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE