Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 25 — Permanent Alimony and Maintenance — Quantum — Factors for Determination — One-time Settlement — Financial Status and Earning Capacity of Husband — Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and awarded Rs. 40,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony to the wife — Both husband and wife appealed against the quantum of alimony — Husband was employed as a Senior Software Engineer drawing a net monthly salary of Rs. 2,24,208/-, whereas the wife was 32 years of age, unemployed, and had no independent source of income — Held, Section 25 of the Act is an enabling provision intended to prevent a dependent spouse from being reduced to destitution or vagrancy — In determining permanent alimony, the Court must evaluate the actual income/earning capacity of the husband, his liabilities, the status of the parties, spiraling inflation, and the life expectancy of the wife (approx. 70 years) so that she can live in reasonable comfort commensurate with the lifestyle enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage — While around 25% of the husband's net salary serves as a reasonable benchmark, deductions are permissible only for statutory liabilities (like income tax) and not for voluntary expenses like EMIs — One-time permanent alimony enhanced from Rs. 40,00,000/- to Rs. 70,00,000/-, payable by the husband in four equal installments within 12 months. (Paras 24, 29, 30, 31, 33, 56, 68, 70, 71, 73)

advocatemmmohan

(JHARKHAND HIGH COURT AT RANCHI)

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD AND SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.

F.A.(DB) No. 247 of 2024 with F.A. No. 05 of 2025, D/- 12-5-2026.

HEADNOTES

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 25 — Permanent Alimony and Maintenance — Quantum — Factors for Determination — One-time Settlement — Financial Status and Earning Capacity of Husband — Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and awarded Rs. 40,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony to the wife — Both husband and wife appealed against the quantum of alimony — Husband was employed as a Senior Software Engineer drawing a net monthly salary of Rs. 2,24,208/-, whereas the wife was 32 years of age, unemployed, and had no independent source of income — Held, Section 25 of the Act is an enabling provision intended to prevent a dependent spouse from being reduced to destitution or vagrancy — In determining permanent alimony, the Court must evaluate the actual income/earning capacity of the husband, his liabilities, the status of the parties, spiraling inflation, and the life expectancy of the wife (approx. 70 years) so that she can live in reasonable comfort commensurate with the lifestyle enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage — While around 25% of the husband's net salary serves as a reasonable benchmark, deductions are permissible only for statutory liabilities (like income tax) and not for voluntary expenses like EMIs — One-time permanent alimony enhanced from Rs. 40,00,000/- to Rs. 70,00,000/-, payable by the husband in four equal installments within 12 months.

(Paras 24, 29, 30, 31, 33, 56, 68, 70, 71, 73)

(B) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 25 — Permanent Alimony — Wife's Parental Means — Relevance — Husband contended that the wife was the sole child of her parents and could inherit their property/means — Held, the financial position of the parents of the wife is completely immaterial when deciding maintenance or permanent alimony — The obligation to maintain the wife flows directly from the marital relationship and cannot be shifted onto her parents, regardless of their financial status.

(Paras 55, 61, 62)

(C) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 25 — Permanent Alimony — Assessment of Husband's Income — Voluntary Deductions vs. Statutory Deductions — Husband disclosed his gross/net earnings along with monthly expenses and rental/loan obligations — Held, while assessing a husband's "free income" for calculating maintenance or permanent alimony, Courts shall consider only statutory liabilities such as income tax and provident fund, while disregarding voluntary expenses such as EMIs on loans, insurance premiums, or optional investments.

(Paras 54, 70)

Cases Referred:

1. Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (Relied on) — Paras 12, 31, 32, 52, 61

2. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 (Relied on) — Paras 27, 70

3. Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 (Relied on) — Paras 29, 30

4. U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 (Relied on) — Para 30

5. Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724 (Relied on) — Paras 32, 33

6. Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678 (Relied on) — Para 34

7. Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259 (Relied on) — Paras 35, 36, 43

8. Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 (Relied on) — Para 60

9. Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 (Relied on) — Para 61

Registration of Births and Deaths Act (18 of 1969), S. 17 — Constitution of India, Art. 226 — Issue of Death Certificate — Rejection on ground of family disputes — Validity — Statutory Duty of Registrar — Petitioner-wife applied for the death certificate of her late husband who passed away in a hospital — Municipal Corporation rejected the application vide endorsement citing existence of disputes among the family members of the deceased — Held, under S. 17 of the Act, any person is entitled to search the register and obtain a certified extract of a birth or death record — The Registrar is a public servant and the register of births and deaths is a public document — There is no statutory provision permitting the refusal or withholding of a death certificate on the ground of family disputes — Refusal to issue the death certificate on such pretext is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable — Impugned endorsement set aside and Municipal Corporation directed to issue the death certificate within four weeks. (Paras 3, 5, 6)

advocatemmmohan

(ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI)

V. SUJATHA, J.

Writ Petition No. 2863 of 2025, D/- 6-2-2025.

HEADNOTES

(A) Registration of Births and Deaths Act (18 of 1969), S. 17 — Constitution of India, Art. 226 — Issue of Death Certificate — Rejection on ground of family disputes — Validity — Statutory Duty of Registrar — Petitioner-wife applied for the death certificate of her late husband who passed away in a hospital — Municipal Corporation rejected the application vide endorsement citing existence of disputes among the family members of the deceased — Held, under S. 17 of the Act, any person is entitled to search the register and obtain a certified extract of a birth or death record — The Registrar is a public servant and the register of births and deaths is a public document — There is no statutory provision permitting the refusal or withholding of a death certificate on the ground of family disputes — Refusal to issue the death certificate on such pretext is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable — Impugned endorsement set aside and Municipal Corporation directed to issue the death certificate within four weeks.

(Paras 3, 5, 6)

(B) Registration of Births and Deaths Act (18 of 1969), S. 17(2) — Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 76 — Public Document — Admissibility of Extracts — Register of births and deaths maintained by the Registrar is a public document under law — Extract certified by the Registrar or authorized officer is admissible in evidence for proving the occurrence of birth or death to which the entry relates — Administrative authorities cannot refuse access to or issuance of certified copies of such statutory public records owing to private inter-se family disputes.

(Paras 4, 5)

Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), S. 24, S. 151 — Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia), (ib) — Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings — Interim Stay — Convenience of Wife — Wife filed transfer petition seeking transfer of divorce proceedings initiated by husband under S. 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act at Senior Civil Judge Court, Gurazala to competent Court at Ongole — Distance between current residence of wife at Ongole and Gurazala was over 150 km — Wife residing separately with a 1½ year old female child and having no male support to travel on every adjournment — Husband already attending multiple ongoing proceedings initiated by wife at Ongole, including criminal case, Maintenance Case, and Domestic Violence Case — Held, prima facie case made out showing severe inconvenience to wife — Interim stay granted on all further proceedings including personal appearance of wife before Senior Civil Judge Court, Gurazala in H.M.O.P. No. 34 of 2025 pending disposal of Transfer Petition. (Order Paras 1–3)

advocatemmmohan

(ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI)

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

I.A. No. 1 of 2025 in Tr.C.M.P. No. 196 of 2025, D/- 8-7-2025.

HEADNOTES

(A) Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), S. 24, S. 151 — Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia), (ib) — Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings — Interim Stay — Convenience of Wife — Wife filed transfer petition seeking transfer of divorce proceedings initiated by husband under S. 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act at Senior Civil Judge Court, Gurazala to competent Court at Ongole — Distance between current residence of wife at Ongole and Gurazala was over 150 km — Wife residing separately with a 1½ year old female child and having no male support to travel on every adjournment — Husband already attending multiple ongoing proceedings initiated by wife at Ongole, including criminal case, Maintenance Case, and Domestic Violence Case — Held, prima facie case made out showing severe inconvenience to wife — Interim stay granted on all further proceedings including personal appearance of wife before Senior Civil Judge Court, Gurazala in H.M.O.P. No. 34 of 2025 pending disposal of Transfer Petition.

(Order Paras 1–3)

(B) Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), S. 24 — Transfer of Matrimonial Cases — Balance of Convenience — Multiple pending proceedings — Husband instituted divorce petition in a distant forum (Gurazala), while three other proceedings (C.C. under BNS and Dowry Prohibition Act, Maintenance Case under S. 125 Cr.P.C., and D.V.C.) filed by wife were already pending at Ongole where husband was appearing — Held, balance of convenience lies in favor of wife when she is caring for a minor child, lacks financial/male support for long-distance travel, and husband is already defending other litigation at the wife's place of residence.

(Order Paras 1–3)

S. 13(1)(ia) — Divorce — Cruelty — Mental and Physical Cruelty — Throwing away of Mangalasutra, abusive behavior, and false criminal litigation — Husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty alleging that the wife insulted him, used abusive language, threw away her 'Mangalasutra', broke household articles, falsely suspected his character, and voluntarily deserted him leaving behind an infant child — Wife filed multiple criminal proceedings under S. 498-A/363 IPC, Domestic Violence Act, and Human Rights Commission complaints, most of which were dismissed or non-prosecuted — Evidence of mediator (PW-2) confirmed holding mediations and advising the wife to wear 'Mangalasutra' after she threw it away — No specific cross-examination or denial was put to the husband regarding the incident of throwing 'Mangalasutra' — Maintenance petition filed by wife under S. 125 Cr.P.C. was previously dismissed holding she left the husband without justifiable cause — Held, unprovoked abusive conduct, public humiliation, throwing away 'Mangalasutra', abandonment of an infant child, combined with a barrage of false and unsubstantiated criminal litigation, amounts to mental cruelty — Family Court erred in dismissing the divorce petition — Decree of divorce granted.

advocatemmmohan

(TELANGANA HIGH COURT)

K. LAKSHMAN AND B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, JJ.

F.C.A. No. 241 of 2011, D/- 31-10-2025.

HEADNOTES

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia) — Divorce — Cruelty — Mental and Physical Cruelty — Throwing away of Mangalasutra, abusive behavior, and false criminal litigation — Husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty alleging that the wife insulted him, used abusive language, threw away her 'Mangalasutra', broke household articles, falsely suspected his character, and voluntarily deserted him leaving behind an infant child — Wife filed multiple criminal proceedings under S. 498-A/363 IPC, Domestic Violence Act, and Human Rights Commission complaints, most of which were dismissed or non-prosecuted — Evidence of mediator (PW-2) confirmed holding mediations and advising the wife to wear 'Mangalasutra' after she threw it away — No specific cross-examination or denial was put to the husband regarding the incident of throwing 'Mangalasutra' — Maintenance petition filed by wife under S. 125 Cr.P.C. was previously dismissed holding she left the husband without justifiable cause — Held, unprovoked abusive conduct, public humiliation, throwing away 'Mangalasutra', abandonment of an infant child, combined with a barrage of false and unsubstantiated criminal litigation, amounts to mental cruelty — Family Court erred in dismissing the divorce petition — Decree of divorce granted.

(Paras 3.1, 3.3, 20.3, 27.1, 35, 36, 37)

(B) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia) — Family Courts Act (66 of 1984), S. 19 — Divorce — Mental Cruelty — Prolonged separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage — Consideration as an auxiliary factor — Parties resided together for barely 2 years and 3 months and had been living separately for over 16 years (since 2008) — Wife filed a series of criminal proceedings but never sought restitution of conjugal rights under S. 9 of the Act, despite claiming willingness to join the husband — Held, although High Court/Family Court cannot dissolve a marriage solely on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, long continuous separation coupled with total absence of cohabitation, mutual acrimony, and failure to seek restitution can be considered as an auxiliary factor alongside proved acts of mental cruelty to hold that the marriage has broken down beyond repair — Order of Family Court set aside.

(Paras 14.1, 17, 31, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41)

Cases Referred:

1. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 (Relied on) — Paras 3.4, 14.2

2. Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, AIR 2023 SC 2144 (Relied on) — Paras 3.4, 15

3. C. Sivakumar v. A. Srividhya, MANU/TN/5183/2022 (Referenced) — Para 3.4

4. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 (Relied on) — Paras 3.4, 16

5. Prabin Gopal v. Meghna, MANU/KE/1505/2021 (Relied on) — Paras 3.4, 17

6. Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy, (2005) 7 SCC 353 (Relied on) — Para 18