The Telangana High Court has held that permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be granted in the absence of a specific application seeking such relief. The Court further held that disputed questions regarding return of gold ornaments and settlement amount cannot be adjudicated for the first time in appeal when such claims were neither pleaded nor proved before the Family Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao allowed a wife's appeal against dismissal of her petition and dissolved the marriage between the parties by granting a decree of divorce, while leaving it open to the wife to pursue remedies regarding permanent alimony and return of gold before the appropriate forum.
Background
The appellant-wife had approached the Family Court under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act seeking a decree of nullity on the ground that her consent for marriage had been obtained by fraud.
According to the wife, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.08.2018 through an arranged alliance after they met on an online matrimonial portal, TeluguMatrimony.com. She alleged that the respondent-husband had represented his date of birth as 09.02.1981, whereas his actual date of birth was 09.02.1974.
The wife argued that she belonged to an orthodox family and that horoscope matching played an important role in the marriage decision. Believing the date of birth disclosed by the husband, her family obtained horoscopes and proceeded with the marriage. According to her, she was under the impression that both parties belonged to the same age group and were government servants whose horoscopes matched. It was her case that had the correct date of birth been disclosed, the horoscope would have been different and the marriage would not have taken place.
The wife further argued that after the engagement, the husband and his parents hurried the marriage and that after marriage, she was subjected to harassment by the husband, his mother and sister. She claimed that when the parties approached the Sub-Registrar's office at Rajendranagar for registration of their marriage in November 2018, she came to know for the first time that the respondent's actual date of birth was 09.02.1974 and that he was nine years older than her.
Alleging fraud and cheating, she sought a declaration that the marriage was null and void.
The husband denied the allegations and contested the proceedings.
After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, the Family Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said decision, the wife approached the High Court.
Court Examines Scope of Section 12(1)(c)
The Division Bench referred to Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and noted that the provision deals with voidable marriages and enables annulment where consent has been obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent.
The Court observed that neither party was a minor and it was not the wife's case that her consent had been obtained by force or that she was under guardianship at the time of marriage.
According to the Bench, the only allegation of fraud against the husband was that he had furnished an incorrect date of birth, which resulted in a wrong horoscope being matched.
Criminal Case and Domestic Violence Proceedings Pending
The High Court noted that, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the wife, Rajendranagar Police had registered Crime No.894 of 2019 and, upon completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet against the husband, which culminated in C.C. No.1713 of 2019 pending before the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar.
The wife had also initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in D.V.C. No.41 of 2019, which were also pending.
The Court further noted that when the original petition was filed in 2019, the wife was about 37 years old and the husband was about 45 years old. By the time the appeal was taken up in 2026, the wife was aged about 44 years and the husband about 55 years.
The Bench also took note of the fact that the wife was employed as Manager in Punjab National Bank, while the husband was working as Accounts Officer in APSPDCL.
Parties No Longer Interested In Continuing Marriage
During the pendency of the appeal, both parties informed the Court that they were no longer interested in continuing the marital relationship and filed affidavits to that effect.
The wife stated that she was willing to withdraw the criminal case and domestic violence proceedings subject to receiving a fair and reasonable full and final settlement amount and return of her gold ornaments.
The husband, in turn, expressed his willingness to consent to the appeal and stated that he had no objection to dissolution of marriage provided the wife withdrew the pending criminal proceedings and domestic violence case.
He further argued that the wife's gold ornaments were not in his possession and asserted that the wife was already in possession of seven tolas of gold belonging to him, which he was willing to forego.
The Division Bench observed that the parties had raised rival claims regarding settlement amount and return of gold ornaments. However, the Court found that these issues had not been pleaded or proved before the Family Court and had arisen during the pendency of the appeal.
Holding that such questions involved disputed facts, the Bench observed:
"The said aspects are disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in the present appeal. Moreover, they have not pleaded and proved the same before the learned Family Court. The same are developments during the pending of the present appeal."
The Court noted that the domestic violence case and criminal proceedings were still pending and those remedies were available to the parties.
Separate Application Mandatory For Permanent Alimony
One of the principal questions before the Court was whether permanent alimony could be granted without a separate application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was argued before the Bench that no independent application was necessary.
Rejecting the argument, the Court referred to Section 25 and relied on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kuldeep Rai v. Smt. Rita.
The Court observed:
"We disagree with the said contention inasmuch as a bare reading of Section 25 clearly indicates that a separate application is required to be made for seeking permanent alimony."
Accordingly, the Court held that, in the absence of a specific application under Section 25, permanent alimony could not be awarded in the appeal. At the same time, it clarified that the wife would be free to seek such relief before the Family Court in accordance with law.
The Bench also found that there was no possibility of reconciliation between them. The Court observed:
"The aforesaid facts would reveal that both the appellant and the respondent are not interested to lead the marital life. Therefore, there is no possibility of reunion."
Observing that there was no possibility of reunion and noting that both parties had unequivocally stated that they were unwilling to continue the marital relationship, the Division Bench set aside the order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Family Court in FCOP No.908 of 2019 and dissolved the marriage between the parties by granting a decree of divorce. The Court clarified that the wife would be at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies regarding return of gold ornaments and permanent alimony before the competent forum, including in the pending domestic violence proceedings.
(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
About the Author
Vatsal Chandra
Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR. His practice spans insolvency matters, intellectual property rights, commercial and civil litigation, and family disputes.
