Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench comprising D K Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan*, JJ., while modifying a Family Court order pertaining to quantum of permanent alimony, held that subsequent remarriage does not itself extinguish a wife’s right to permanent alimony; rather, it is a relevant factor in determining the quantum payable. Noting that Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act), contemplates variation of permanent alimony on the wife’s remarriage, the Court reduced the quantum from ₹25,00,000 to ₹10,00,000. In fixing the reduced quantum, the Court weighed the financial position of the parties, the period for which the wife remained unmarried after the decree of dissolution (09-02-2023 to 21-04-2024), and her subsequent remarriage.
The Court began by observing that alimony is not a prize, bounty or continuing entitlement, and that it cannot become a windfall merely because the recipient has remarried. At the same time, remarriage does not obliterate the circumstances that gave rise to her entitlement.
Background
The present appeal was filed by the appellant (husband) challenging the Family Court order dated 9-2-2023 in favour of the respondent (wife) pertaining to the grant of permanent alimony of ₹ 25,00,000.
The husband and the wife were married on 3-5-2021 in accordance with the applicable customs. The wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in 2022 on the grounds of mental and physical cruelty and demanded a permanent alimony of ₹ 1,00,00,000. The Family Court allowed the petition and granted a decree of dissolution of marriage by awarding a permanent alimony of ₹ 25,00,000.
The Family Court noted that the wife had relied upon husband’s income and alleged ownership of several properties but did not adduce any evidence to prove the same. The husband had stated his annual salary to be ₹ 25,00,000 and his monthly income to be ₹ 1,70,000 but he had not filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities to establish his actual source of income. It also took note of the wife’s employment, including her annual income of ₹ 7,00,000.
The Family Court while awarding the said quantum took into consideration, loss of marital life and lower income of the wife and financial capacity of the husband.
During the pendency of the appeal, the wife’s counsel filed a memo dated 06-11-2024 stating that she had remarried on 21-04-2024, and produced a marriage registration certificate dated 31-08-2024. The husband’s counsel submitted that the remarriage, along with his obligations towards dependent parents, was a relevant circumstance.
Also Read: Wife’s Employment No Bar to Alimony: Jharkhand HC | SCC Times| SCC Times
Contentions
The wife alleged that, after about three months of happy married life, the husband subjected her to mental and physical cruelty, abused and sexually assaulted her, doubted her fidelity, and restricted her contact with friends and relatives. She further alleged that he failed to provide food, clothing, and medicine; assaulted and ousted her from the matrimonial home on 7-1-2022; and later assaulted her and her father. Based on the husband’s income and assets, she sought permanent alimony of ₹1,00,00,000/-.
The husband denied the allegations and stated that he had taken the wife on outings, provided for her needs, and gifted her expensive articles. He alleged that she frequently quarrelled with him and his parents, insisted on a separate residence in Pune, and expressed on 6-1-2022 that she did not wish to live with him. He stated that, although he agreed to a separate residence to save the marriage, she did not return. His attempts at reconciliation through calls, WhatsApp messages, and visits by his family to her parental home were unsuccessful. He further stated that, during a subsequent panchayat, her parents suggested mutual divorce, while he maintained that he had discharged his marital duties and remained willing to resume matrimonial life.
Issue
Whether the order of the Family Court, insofar as the quantum of permanent alimony is concerned, warrants interference?
Analysis
The Court observed that subsequent remarriage of the wife is a circumstance which has to be considered while determining permanent alimony.
Section 25 of the Act enables the Court to vary, modify or rescind an order for permanent alimony upon a change in circumstances. Sub- section (3) specifically provides for variation when the party in whose favour the order has been made, has remarried.
The Court noted that there is no fixed formula for determining permanent alimony. In determining it, the Court must consider the income and property of both parties, their respective means, status, earning capacity and future prospects, reasonable requirements, and other circumstances of the case. The Court must also consider subsequent events that have a bearing on these circumstances.
The subsequent event of remarriage of the wife changes the circumstances which were relevant to the assessment of her future financial requirements. Relying on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Sharath Cariappa K.S v. Sharin N.S, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 30829 wherein the facts were similar to this case. In the said case, the Court took note of the subsequent remarriage and considering the period for which she was entitled to maintenance as well as the financial and social status of the parties, the Court reduced the permanent alimony from ₹25,00,000/- to ₹10,00,000/-.
The Court observed that the wife’s subsequent remarriage does not, by itself, extinguish her entitlement to permanent alimony. However, it constitutes a material change in circumstances that must be considered while determining the quantum of permanent alimony payable.
The Court noted that the husband had not filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities, as required by Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, nor placed material evidence on record to substantiate his financial obligations.
Regarding other grounds of appeal pertaining to non-disclosure of income details of the wife as well as husband’s financial obligations towards his dependent parents, the Court found that he had not placed on record any affidavit of assets and liabilities as per the law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Hence, these contentions don’t warrant any interference.
Also Read: Permanent alimony doesn’t end husband’s duty of financial support: Jharkhand HC | SCC Times
Decision
In light of the above contentions and analysis, the Court while partly allowing the appeal, reduced the permanent alimony from ₹25,00,000/- to ₹10,00,000/-. Since the husband had already deposited the said sum pursuant to order dated 12-3-2025, no further amount is payable to wife towards permanent alimony. The order by Family Court dated 9-2-2023 is modified to above extent.
[X v. Y, Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1557 of 2023, decided on 18-9-2026]
*Judgment authored by Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Vachana N.V., Advocate.
For the Respondent: Harshitha S. for Venkatesh R. Bhagat, Advocates.
