The Karnataka High Court has held that permanent alimony cannot be fixed merely by looking at how long a marriage lasted or by applying a mathematical formula. A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan upheld an award of ₹50 lakh to the wife, while dismissing cross-appeals filed by both sides.
The Court also upheld the Family Court’s decision dissolving the marriage and rejecting the wife’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights. The judgment was pronounced on September 11, 2026.
Background
The parties married on January 6, 2021. The wife had previously worked as an Assistant Professor but stated that she left her employment at the husband’s instance. After the marriage, the parties lived for periods in Mumbai and Qatar, but their relationship became strained.
The wife approached the Family Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In response, the husband sought divorce on the ground of cruelty. The wife also claimed ₹3 crore as permanent alimony.
The Family Court rejected her petition, allowed the husband’s counter-claim for divorce and awarded her ₹50 lakh as permanent alimony. Both parties challenged the decision before the High Court. The husband sought reduction of the amount to ₹10 lakh, while the wife sought enhancement to ₹3 crore.
The husband argued that the marriage had lasted only around two years and that the parties had actually lived together for a relatively short period. He also relied on his subsequent loss of employment, liabilities and the wife’s educational qualifications.
The High Court, however, said the duration of the marriage could not be treated as the sole basis for determining permanent alimony.
The Court observed:
“The contention of the Respondent that the amount should be reduced merely because the marriage was of short duration or because he claims to be presently unemployed cannot be accepted. Permanent alimony cannot be determined on the basis of the duration of the marriage alone or by applying a mathematical formula.”
The Bench noted that the Family Court had considered several circumstances, including the wife’s lack of present employment, her educational qualifications and future earning prospects, the husband’s income and assets, and deficiencies in his financial disclosure. The husband’s termination from employment and his claimed liabilities were also considered.
The High Court further held:
“On an overall consideration of the material, we find that the Family Court has struck a reasonable balance between the competing circumstances of the parties. It neither accepted the Respondent’s plea that the Petitioner was disentitled to a substantial amount merely because of the short duration of the marriage, nor accepted the Petitioner’s claim for Rs.3,00,00,000/- without supporting evidence.”
The Court also examined the allegations and counter-allegations concerning the matrimonial relationship. It found that the relationship had become strained from an early stage, with disputes involving family matters, employment, their stays in Mumbai and Qatar, and the eventual breakdown of communication and cohabitation.
The Bench found no sufficient ground to interfere with the Family Court’s conclusion that the marriage had broken down beyond repair and that the decree of divorce should remain undisturbed.
The High Court held that neither side had established a sufficient basis for altering the ₹50 lakh permanent alimony award. The wife did not establish that the amount required enhancement, while the husband did not establish that it was excessive or beyond his means.
The Court therefore confirmed the Family Court judgment, including the dismissal of the Section 9 petition, the decree of divorce and the award of ₹50 lakh as permanent alimony. Both M.F.A. No. 5574/2026 and M.F.A. No. 3547/2026 were dismissed.
