Signing you in

A bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish Chavan was dealing with a plea of a husband challenging the family court’s direction on Rs 10 lakh permanent alimony to his wife and Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance for their minor daughter.

“We indicated to the learned counel for the appellant that, though we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Pune, for determination of the amount of permanent alimony as well as the amount of maintenance to be paid to the daughter, which would necessarily have to be commensurate with the earnings of the appellant and since the learned Judge has merely carried out a guess work without any evidence produced on record as to what is the earning of the husband and what is the need of the wife…” the court said on August 28.

The court remarked that we expect the family court’s judges to determine the amount of permanent alimony by drawing a statement of the earnings of the husband and the needs of the wife, and by permitting both the parties to adduce appropriate evidence, after taking on record the statements of assets and liabilities of both the parties.

The man approached the high court challenging the financial directions in a family court judgment of October, 2025. The family court had dissolved his marriage and directed him to pay Rs 10 lakh as permanent alimony to his wife and Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance for their minor daughter.

The divorce proceedings were filed by the husband under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty. The family court found the allegation proved. The wife did not contest the proceedings and subsequently did not challenge the divorce decree.

The dispute before the high court was limited to the quantum of permanent alimony and child maintenance. The court pointed out that the family court had assumed, without supporting evidence, that the husband’s income was Rs 1 lakh per month because he was skilled and qualified and had previously worked in Germany. On that basis, it fixed the Rs 10 lakh alimony and Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance.

The husband challenged this assessment, arguing in substance that the amounts had been fixed without proper evidence of his actual earnings or the wife’s financial needs. The high court therefore examined whether the family court had properly assessed the parties’ financial circumstances.

The court observed that the family court had fixed the permanent alimony and child maintenance without considering evidence regarding the husband’s actual income or the wife’s financial needs.

It noted that the family court had merely assumed that the husband, being skilled and qualified and having worked in Germany, earned Rs 1 lakh per month. The court held that the amount of permanent alimony should be commensurate with the husband’s earnings, while the wife’s needs must also be properly assessed.

It directed the family court to consider statements of assets and liabilities of both parties, allow them to produce appropriate evidence, and determine the husband’s earnings and the wife’s needs before fixing the final amount.

However, the court directed the husband to continue paying Rs 10,000 per month for the minor daughter, subject to adjustment depending on the final decision.