Gujarat High Court
Vedant Navinchandra Joshi vs Tamanna Vedant Joshi D/O Rameshchandra ... on 19 March, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2296 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=======================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
=======================================
VEDANT NAVINCHANDRA JOSHI
Versus
TAMANNA VEDANT JOSHI D/O RAMESHCHANDRA KANTILAL
RAWAL
=======================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MR PRABHAKAR
UPADYAY(1060) for the Appellant
MR AMIT P PATEL(3498) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 19/03/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK) Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant wife under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter be referred to as "the H.M. Act") against the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar, (hereinafter be referred to as "the Family Court") in Family Suit No. 68 of 2019 filed by the husband, whereby the Family Court has dismissed the suit.
2. Brief facts of the present case are in nutshell as under:-
2.1 That the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 28.01.2012 at Village : Khodamli, Taluka:
Satlasana, District: Mehsana and after marriage they went to Mahabaleshwar and Panchgini. After coming from Mahabaleshwar, the respondent stayed at matrimonial home for a period of 15 days and, thereafter, she went to Mumbai at her parental home as the class for C.S. from Ideal Coaching Institute was going on. In the year 2013, the appellant asked the respondent to come for festival at matrimonial home to which she came at her matrimonial home and after living for 10 to 15 days, she went to her parental home. That in November 2013, the respondent got pregnant and by taking the leave in January 2014, the appellant went to help the respondent for preparation of exam of C.S and thereafter both came to Gandhinagar as there was C.S. exam at Ahmedabad. The respondent delivered a baby girl child namely Vedokti on 23.07.2014 at Visnagar, District: Mehsana and the respondent resided at her parental home till 01.03.2015 and after delivery of Vedokti, the appellant, his parents and uncle went to his in-laws' house to take respondent and daughter, however, the father of the respondent Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined refused to send both of them, as also on the death of the grandfather of the appellant also.
2.2 When the daughter Vedokti was suffering from Pneumonia, the father of respondent did not inform to the appellant and he admitted Vedokti to the hospital, Satlasan, District: Mehsana and the same was informed through the person of the village of the mother of the appellant. The appellant along with his parents went to Satlasan on 28.02.2015 to see the daughter where he came to know that his daughter discharged on 28.02.2015. The cruelty of the respondent was in such a nature that she had not allowed the appellant and father-in-law and mother-in-law to see the daughter, but the father of the respondent put an condition that if they apologized then only they should be allowed to see the daughter.
2.3 In view of the above, the appellant filed an application before the Mahila Ayog on 10.09.2018 for settlement. However, the respondent had filed Criminal Misc. Application for maintenance before the concerned Court and the concerned Court allowed the application and awarded Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance, for which, the appellant has preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 1450 of 2018 before this Court and thereafter the matter was sent to mediation centre on 18.04.2019, but it was not fruitful for the appellant as the respondent was not able to take the decision and it became four years that the respondent deserted the appellant. The appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the H.M. Act for restitution of conjugal rights and the order of conjugal rights passed by the Court below has not been complied with by the Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined respondent and hence, it was not possible to re-unite and, therefore, the appellant had preferred above-mentioned Family Suit for dissolution of marriage. The Family Court has framed the issues at Exhibit 6 which reproduced as under:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff husband proves that he has been treated with cruelty by the respondent wife ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff husband proves that he has been deserted by the respondent wife without any reasonable cause?
(3) Whether the respondent wife proves that she has been deserted by the plaintiff husband without any sufficient reason?
(4) Whether the plaintiff husband is entitled to get the relief, as prayed for?
(5) What order and decree?
2.4 After hearing and considering the submissions of both the
sides, the Family Court has dismissed the suit.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant
- husband has preferred the present first appeal.
4. The Division Bench of this Court admitted the appeal on 13.09.2021 and, thereafter, vide order dated 11.07.2022, the matter was referred to the High Court Mediation Centre, but the same was unsuccessful, the matter is listed for hearing.
5. Heard Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel for Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined Mr.Prabhakar Upadyay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Amit P. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent at length.
6. Mr.Mehta, learned senior counsel for Mr.Upadyay, learned counsel has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is unjust, illegal and contrary to the facts and provisions of law. He has submitted that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Family Court are perverse and contrary to the facts of the present case. He has submitted that the Family Court has observed in the impugned judgment and decree that there was a cruelty on the part of the appellant, which is illegal and unjust, but in fact there is a cruelty on the part of the respondent and, therefore, the case of the appellant would fall within the ambit of Section 13(1) (i-a) of the H.M. Act. He has submitted that the appellant has proved his case by leading relevant and necessary evidence, despite of that, the Family Court has dismissed the suit.
6.1 Mr.Mehta, learned senior counsel has submitted that without there being any cogent and material evidence on the part of the respondent, the Family Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree and observed in para - 14 as under:-
"...... I have gone through the evidence of the totality of the parties and it also appears that the said applicant have also known the said Trupti Chudasama and both have also doing the teaching work so under such a circumstances, it is very Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined possibility that they are having intimacy relation with the said Trupti Chudasama if there is no any such type of evidence then there is no any reason to leave the wife......."
6.2 Mr.Mehta, learned senior counsel has also submitted that for the aforesaid fact / observation, the respondent has not produced any evidence to prove the same before the Family Court, however, the Family Court has come to the conclusion that under such circumstances, the allegation of the illicit relation between the husband and Trupti Chudasama is to be believed, which is completely erroneous finding recorded by the Family Court. He has submitted that the respondent has made baseless allegation with regard to cruelty meted out to her at the behest of the appellant, for which there is no any evidence produced on record, but on the contrary, the cruelty meted out by the respondent to the appellant and his family members. He has submitted that though the sufficient attempt was made by the appellant and the family members, since last nine years, the respondent did not turn up and join with the appellant. He has submitted that the marriage is bios obligation between the husband and wife, if either of the parties fails to comply with the obligation, it is nothing but a cruelty to the others. Mr.Mehta, learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant was serving as Section Officer in the State Government and his salary is Rs.95,000/- per month and till the date of his service Rs.9,00,000/- lying in the P.P.F. Account of the appellant which is to be paid by him.
6.3 Mr.Mehta, learned counsel has submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined
7. Per contra, Mr. Patel, learned counsel has submitted that the Family Court has not committed any error of law and facts in dismissing the suit. He has submitted that the appellant has extra marital relationship with one Trupti Chudasama,but because of such relationship there is no any documentary or any other evidence likewise a cheat or photograph, however, considering the act on the part of the appellant, it is presumed that the appellant is having an extra marital relationship with Trupti Chudasama. He has submitted that the family of the appellant was not keeping good relation with the respondent and thereby she was given mental and physical cruelty and even after the birth of the girl child, the family members of the appellant has not kept any good relation with the respondent as they wanted to a boy child. He has submitted that the findings recorded and observations made by the Family Court in the Family Suit as well as in the Criminal Misc. Application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are relevant to decide the present appeal. He has submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court deserves to be confirmed.
7.1 In support of his submissions, Mr. Patel, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions.
(1) Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani Vs. Meena alias Mota, AIR 1964 SC 40;
(2) Ayodhya Singh Vs. Smt. Meera Devi, AIR 2004 Jharkhand 88;Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined (3) Anil Kumar Jain Vs. Maya Jain, AIR 2010 SC 229; (4) C. Sampath Vs. Revathy in C.M.S.A No. 8 of 2014 dated 15.07.2022, High Court of Madras;
(5) Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Manju Sharma, AIR 2009 SC 2254; (6) Pramodkumar C. Shah Vs. Rajulaben Pramodkumar Shah, 2013 (2) GLH 360;
8. We have heard submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the relevant documents and material placed on record as well as the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court.
9. Considering the facts of the case, it appears that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 28.01.2012 as per the Hindu rites and rituals and out of the said wedlock, they have a baby girl child. It also reveals from the record that the respondent left the matrimonial home and thereafter she did not turn up. So, the appellant issued legal notice to the respondent, for which, she has given the reply. The appellant has preferred the Family Suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which came to be dismissed and the respondent has preferred an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance, which came be allowed by the Family Court and awarded Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance. Against the order passed by the Family Court in maintenance application, the appellant has preferred criminal revision application before this Court, which is at present pending.
10. Considering the submission of Mr.Patel, learned counsel Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined that the observation made by the Family Court in the proceeding filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it does not preclude, but the Family Court has to consider the evidence led by either parties and come to the conclusion that there was desertion. From the evidence of the respondent, it appears that she suspicion on the husband and on suspicion, she is alleging the extra marital affairs of the appellant to one lady for which no any cogent and material evidence produced before the Family Court. However, the Family Court, while passing the impugned judgment and decree, has come to the conclusion that under such circumstances, such type of illicit relation has been deposed by the respondent wife is sufficient. So for that, no any material produced by the respondent before the Family Court and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Family Court is completely perverse as there was no evidence either in the nature of documentary and/or any other evidence. The findings recorded by the Family Court are absolutely on presumption, conjuncture and surmises and the same are perverse as there is no evidence with regard to relationship with Trupti Chudasama who was in past erstwhile with the appellant by carrying tutorial for the competitive examination. On perusal of the evidence of the husband and wife, the fact is very much clear that the respondent does not want to reside with the husband in joint family. Even the elders of the family members have tried to settle the dispute between the husband and wife, but it is in vain and since last more than nine years, the respondent resided with her parents at Mumbai. It is further to be noted herein that the respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance wherein the Family Court has awarded Rs.10,000/- to the respondent and Rs.5,000/-
Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined to the minor daughter towards the maintenance. It also appears that the respondent has also filed the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act which is at present pending before the concerned Court. The appellant has filed an application under Section 9 of the H. M. Act for restitution of conjugal rights which was dismissed by the Family Court and the same has not been challenged by the wife since she does not want to re-union and reside with the husband in the joint family.
11. At this stage, it is also relevant to take into account the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rani Narasimha Sastri vs. Rani Suneela Rani reported in (2020) 18 SCC 247, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the fact that cruelty is a sufficient ground for divorce and thus has observed that:-
"13. In the present case, the prosecution is launched by the respondent against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC making serious allegations in which the appellant had to undergo trial which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. In the prosecution under Section 498-A IPC not only acquittal has been recorded but observations have been made that allegations of serious nature are levelled against each other. The case set up by the appellant seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been established. With regard to proceeding initiated by the respondent under Section 498-A IPC, the High Court made the following observation in para 15: (Rani Narsimha Sastry case, SCC OnLine Hyd) "15. ... Merely because the respondent has sought for maintenance or has filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, they cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding that such a recourse adopted by the respondent amounts to cruelty."
The above observation of the High Court cannot be approved. It is true that it is open for anyone to file Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal of his or her grievances and lodge a first information report for an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under Section 498-A IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has been meted out on the husband. As per the pleadings before us, after parties having been married on 14-8-2005 they lived together only 18 months and, thereafter, they are separately living for more than a decade now."
12. In the case of Dr.Mayuriben W/o Shaileshbhai Mudhava D/o. Maganbhai Luhar Vs. Dr.Shaileshbhai Ganeshbhai Mundhava reported in 2024 LawSuit (Guj) 1984, the Court has observed that in the present case, on allegations are such which are grave and weighty which can be treated to be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life.
13. In the case of Joydeep Majumdar Vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar reported in (2021) 3 SCC 742, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para - 10 as under:-
"10. For considering dissolution of marriage at the instance of a spouse who allege mental cruelty, the result of such mental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continue with the matrimonial relationship. In other words, the wronged party cannot be expected to condone such conduct and continue to live with his/her spouse. The degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party. In Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 this Court gave illustrative cases where inference of mental cruelty could be drawn even while emphasizing Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined that no uniform standard can be laid down and each case will have to be decided on its own facts."
14. In the case of Shri Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita reported in AIR 2023 SC 2144, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered that the long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the 1955 Act and passed the order of dissolution of marriage.
15. In the case of Amutha Vs. A. R. Subramaniam reported in 2024 LawSuit (SC) 1187, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras - 26, 31, 34 and 39 as under:-
"26. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by the parties and the facts established in this case, this Court finds itself in agreement with the decision of the High Court, which granted a decree of divorce in favor of the respondent husband. The appellant's arguments centered around procedural challenges under Section 100 of the CPC, and her insistence on reconciliation, fail to address the core and undeniable realities of the marriage between the parties. On the contrary, the evidence on record unequivocally demonstrates grounds of cruelty, prolonged separation, and an irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. These grounds, coupled with legal precedents cited by the High Court, leave no room for doubt that the marriage has lost its essence and that its continuation would serve no meaningful purpose.
[31] Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship, and shared experiences. When these essential elements are missing for an extended period, the marital bond becomes a mere legal formality devoid of any substance. This Court has consistently held that prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcile, is a relevant factor in deciding matrimonial disputes. In the present case, the length of separation and the evident animosity between the parties make it clear that there is no Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined possibility of the marriage being revived.
[34] It is evident from the record that continuation of the marriage would only lead to further animosity and litigation, causing harm to both parties. The appellant's insistence on reconciliation appears to be more of a strategy to prolong the proceedings rather than a genuine effort to revive the relationship. In matrimonial disputes, this Court has emphasized the need to prioritize welfare and dignity of both parties. Forcing a marriage to continue when it has become a source of unhappiness and conflict undermines the very purpose of the institution of marriage. In the present case, the interests of both the parties are best served by allowing both parties to move on with their lives independently.
[39] In granting permanent alimony and financial support, this Court is mindful of the principles laid down in Rajnesh vs. Neha, 2021 2 SCC 324. The factors to be considered while awarding maintenance or alimony include the duration of the marriage, the earning capacities of the parties, their age and health, their standard of living, and their financial and non-financial contributions to the marriage. Here, the appellant has spent substantial time during the pendency of the litigation without the emotional or financial support of the respondent. Moreover, granting a lumpsum as permanent alimony ensures finality and reduces the scope for future litigation between the parties. While the appellant is presumably capable of earning, she has undoubtedly faced financial and emotional setbacks due to the prolonged litigation and separation. Similarly, the financial provision for the daughter ensures her welfare is not compromised due to the breakdown of the marital relationship between her parents."
16. It is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rinku Baheti Vs. Sandesh Sharda, reported in 2024 LawSuit (SC) 1187, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para - 14 as under:-
"14. We have to now consider the question of assessing the alimony for the petitioner upon the dissolution of Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined marriage between the parties. It was for the limited purpose of determining the quantum of alimony or maintenance or other rights of the petitioner wife that this Court had transferred the case to the Family Court, Pune. The Family Court has considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail, and has sent us its report in the form of an order dated 22.03.2024. In essence, the petitioner-wife has sought permanent alimony commensurate to the assets and income of the respondent-husband and on the same principles on which the alimony was paid to the first wife of the respondent. The respondent-husband has denied the exorbitant claims of the petitioner and submitted that Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.40 lakhs would be an appropriate amount of permanent alimony for the petitioner. Finally, the Family Court, Pune has suggested a permanent alimony of Rs.2 lakhs per month for the petitioner-wife or Rs.10 crores in lumpsum.
14.1 We have perused the application of the petitioner for fixation of alimony, the reply of the respondent to the said application, the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Family Court, Pune, and the submissions advanced in this aspect.
14.2 The dispute with respect to the amount of alimony is generally the most contentious point between parties in such marital proceedings, supplemented by a plethora of accusations to remove the cover from the opposite party's income and assets. The judicial dicta in this context could be discussed as under:
14.2.1 In the order passed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Shakti vs. Anita,MANU/SCOR/139017/2023 Civil Appeal No. 7427/2023, decided on 02.11.2023, it was observed as under:
"That brings us to the aspect of permanent alimony over which the real dispute is. We looked to the offer of the appellant as also the desire of the respondent. There is undoubtedly a miss match! As often happens the claim of the respondent is based on what is stated to be a large number of properties of the family of the appellant, though nothing is placed on record of anything in his name."
14.2.2 The law with respect to deciding the amount of permanent alimony was summarised by a bench of this Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined Court recently in Kiran Jyot Maini vs. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 7 SCR 942 , wherein this Court speaking through Vikram Nath, J. has touched upon the question of one-time settlement and the factors that should be taken into consideration while determining fair amount of permanent alimony. It was also observed as under:
"The status of the parties is a significant factor, encompassing their social standing, lifestyle, and financial background. The reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children must be assessed, including costs for food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical expenses. The applicant's educational and professional qualifications, as well as their employment history, play a crucial role in evaluating their potential for self-sufficiency. If the applicant has any independent source of income or owns property, this will also be taken into account to determine if it is sufficient to maintain the same standard of living experienced during the marriage. Additionally, the court considers whether the applicant had to sacrifice employment opportunities for family responsibilities, such as child-rearing or caring for elderly family members, which may have impacted their career prospects."
14.2.3 In Vinny Paramvir Parmar vs. Paramvir Parmar, 2011 9 SCR 371 , this Court held that there cannot be a fixed formula or a straitjacket rubric for fixing the amount of permanent alimony and only broad principles can be laid down. The question of maintenance is subjective to each case and depends on various factors and circumstances as presented in individual cases. This Court in the above judgment stated that the courts shall consider the following broad factors while determining permanent alimony income and properties of both the parties respectively, conduct of the parties, status, social and financial, of the parties, their respective personal needs, capacity and duty to maintain others dependant on them, husband's own expenses, wife's comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to during the subsistence of the marriage, among other supplementary factors.
14.2.4 This was further reiterated by this Court in Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, 2012 7 SCR 607 , while observing that permanent alimony is to be granted after considering largely the social status, conduct of the parties, the parties' lifestyle, and other such Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined ancillary factors.
14.3 Earlier, a two-judge bench of this Court speaking through Indu Malhotra, J. in Rajnesh vs. Neha, 2021 2 SCC 324 ("Rajnesh"), elaborated upon the broad criteria and the factors to be considered for determining the quantum of maintenance. This court emphasizes that there is no fixed formula for calculating maintenance amount; instead, it should be based on a balanced consideration of various factors. These factors include and are illustrative but are not limited or exhaustive, they are adumbrated as under:
i. Status of the parties, social and financial. ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children. iii. Qualifications and employment status of the parties. iv. Independent income or assets owned by the parties. v. Maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial home. vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities.
vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife. viii. Financial capacity of husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.
14.4 In the instant case as well, the petitioner-wife has stated that the respondenthusband is a man of means with a net-worth of Rs.5,000 crores with multiple businesses and properties in USA and in India and that he had paid his first wife at least Rs.500 crores upon separation, excluding a house in Virginia, USA. Thus, she claims permanent alimony commensurate to the status of the respondent-
husband and on the same principles as was paid to the first wife of the respondent. The respondent-husband on the other hand is willing to pay a reasonable amount to cover the difference in the income and expenditure of the petitioner-wife, which he feels should be in the range of Rs.20 to 40 lakhs as a one-time lump sum payment. Thus, there is a clear and significant divergence or "mismatch" between the offer and the desire.
14.5 We have serious reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the other party. It is often seen that parties in their application for maintenance or alimony highlight the assets, status and income of their spouse, and then ask for an amount that can equal their wealth to that of the spouse. However, there is an inconsistency in this practice, because the demands of equalisation are made only in Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined cases where the spouse is a person of means or is doing well for himself. But such demands are conspicuously absent in cases where the wealth of the spouse has decreased since the time of separation. There cannot be two different approaches to seeking and granting maintenance or alimony, depending on the status and income of the spouse. The law of maintenance is aimed at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice and dignity of the individual. The husband is under a legal obligation to sufficiently provide for his wife. As per settled law, the wife is entitled to be maintained as far as possible in a manner that is similar to what she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home while the parties were together. But once the parties have separated, it cannot be expected of the husband to maintain her as per his present status all his life. If the husband has moved ahead and is fortunately doing better in life post his separation, then to ask him to always maintain the status of the wife as per his own changing status would be putting a burden on his own personal progress. We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events postseparation, he has been rendered a pauper?
14.6 However, the law permits that if there is a continuing obligation on the husband post-separation, he may seek a reduction in the maintenance amount. Equally, a divorced wife, in the context of receiving monthly maintenance from a former husband can seek enhancement of the same owing to inflation or other circumstances which have adversely affected her status and position such as serious illness or loss of income from a particular source, etc. 14.7 But the petitioner-wife in the instant case has sought equalisation of status not just with the respondent-husband but also with the ex-wife of the respondent. In our opinion, this cannot be an acceptable approach. The fixation of alimony depends on various factors and there cannot be any straight-jacket formula for the same. Thus, the petitioner cannot simply claim an amount equal to what the ex wife of the respondent had received or on the basis of the income of the respondent. The Court has to not just consider the income of the respondent husband here, but also bear in mind other factors such as the income of the petitioner-wife, her reasonable needs, her residential rights, and other similar factors. Thus, her entitlement to maintenance has to be decided based on the factors Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined applicable to her and not depend on what the respondent had paid to his ex-wife or solely on his income.
14.8 This Court in Rajnesh, has observed that the duration of the marriage would also be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while assessing the permanent alimony to be paid to the wife. In the instant case, the parties were married on 31.07.2021. They hardly resided together for about three to four months. The respondent-husband left for USA in the month of November, 2021 and thereafter returned in January, 2021. Between January, 2021 and March, 2021, the parties are said to have stayed together for short intervals at Pune, Kota, Bhopal and Jaipur, and thereafter, the respondent again returned to USA on 08.03.2022. The respondent then came back from USA on 12.06.2022. The differences between the spouses emerged in the month of June-July, 2022, when the respondent is said to have suggested separation and the petitioner refused the same, leading to a criminal complaint also being filed by the respondent against the petitioner in July, 2022. In fact, on 13.08.2022, a petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed by the parties before the Family Court, Bhopal. The said divorce petition was dismissed owing to there being no separation between the parties for one complete year."
17. It is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli reported in (2006) 4 SCC 558, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para - 86 as under:-
"86. In view of the fact that the parties have been living separately for more than 10 years and a very large number of aforementioned criminal and civil proceedings have been initiated by the respondent against the appellant and some proceedings have been initiated by the appellant against the respondent, the matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is only in name. The marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto. To keep the sham is obviously conducive to immorality and Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined potentially more prejudicial to the public interest than a dissolution of the marriage bond."
18. On perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, it appears that the Family Court has, while considering the evidence led by both the side, has recorded the findings and reasoning in para-9 onward more particularly paras - 12, 13 and 14 are completely erroneous and illegal. The finding recorded by the Family Court in para - 15, which reads thus:-
15. Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 there is desertion have been also narrated and I have also gone through Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code wherein the cruelty have been also defined therefore considering the above provision of law under Section 13 about the desertion and cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code one thing is very clear that the said opponent wife has proved the said desertion and cruelty have been committed by the applicant husband on the said opponent wife."
19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, we are not agreement with finding recorded by the Family Court in Family Suit No. 68 of 2019 and the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be quashed and set aside.
20. Mr.Mehta, learned senior counsel upon instruction of the appellant, who remained present in the Court, has submitted that the amount which is lying in the P.P.F. account is to be paid to the minor daughter and so far as the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- is concerned, the same to be paid as permanent alimony to the respondent. It is also submitted that the amount which is demanded by the respondent is so high, which cannot be Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined acquainted between the parties. Therefore, this Court at its own has calculated Rs.25,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent - wife. So far as the dowry articles as claimed by the wife are concerned, the same were lying at the place, for which there is no sufficient proof available before this Court and, therefore, this Court has not passed any order with regard to the dowry articles.
21. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 09.07.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar in Family Suit No. 68 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant shall pay Rs.25,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent - wife and Rs.9,00,000/- which is lying in the P.P.F. account to the respondent - daughter. The marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent is hereby declared as null and void and the same is dissolved from the date of this order. Record and proceedings, if any, called for shall be transmitted back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, ACJ) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025