Courts Should Not Look At Pay Package Of Parties Alone To Determine Amount Of Alimony: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that courts should not look at the pay package of the parties alone to determine the amount of alimony that has to be awarded.
The Court declined to interfere with the order of the award of maintenance of permanent alimony granted by the family court to the wife, noting that the husband had legally remarried, and therefore had “further responsibilities and financial liabilities.”
A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed, “While money may always short to fulfill all human needs, the Courts may not look at the pay package of the parties alone to determine the amount of alimony that would be awarded.”
Advocate Abha Gupta appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Manish Tandon represented the respondent.
The wife had filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 challenging the judgment and order passed by the family court, whereby a decree under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) was passed providing for a lumpsum alimony. At the same time, the family court had adjusted a certain sum for the daughter under an earlier decree of divorce under Section 13 of the HMA on the grounds of cruelty.
During the period of separation, the family court had passed an order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. awarding maintenance to the wife and the daughter (appellants). The amount of monthly maintenance was later revised under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. The parties submitted before the Court that while the recoveries were pending, a compromise was reached between the parties.
The Husband submitted that he got remarried after the dismissal of the First Appeal and had three children from the second marriage. It was also submitted that he had two siblings with special needs to take care of.
Noting that the marriage between the parties survived only for three years and the husband was “saddled with the liabilities under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,” the High Court stated that the alimony awarded by the family court required no interference.
The Court observed, “In the entirety of facts and circumstance where the marriage between the parties survived only for three years and they have remained separated since then and also considering the fact that the respondent remarried, in accordance with law giving rise to his further responsibilities and financial liabilities, as also considering the fact that earlier the respondent was saddled with the liabilities under Section 125 Cr.P.C., primarily, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of the award of maintenance of permanent alimony.”
However, the Court admitted the submission advanced by the appellants that the family court erred in deducting a certain amount from the amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife. “Whatever was paid to the daughter born to the parties, may not have been adjusted against the amount payable to the appellant no.1,” the Bench stated.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “The amount so deposited may be released in favour of appellant no.1 subject to both appellants giving an undertaking before the learned Court below to withdraw from all cases/proceedings instituted against the respondent include those seeking more money either towards alimony or maintenance and further undertaking not to institute any other proceeding civil or criminal.”
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Smt. X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:124957-DB)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Ram Gupta and Abha Gupta
Respondent: Advocates Manish Gupta Manish Tandon