Importance of adhering to procedural requirements, especially in cases involving Permanent Alimony. It strikes a balance between judicial discretion and the necessity for a formal claim under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, safeguarding both legal consistency and fairness in matrimonial litigation: Hon'ble MP High Court

Here is an exhaustive summary and detailed note based on the judgment in First Appeal No. 1793 of 2023, decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore on 27 March 2025, concerning permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

---

Judgment: FA-1793-2023 (M.P. High Court, Indore)

Case Title:

Appellant (Husband) vs. Respondent (Wife)
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench
Judges: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Gajendra Singh
Date of Judgment: 27th March 2025
Appeal Under: Section 28(4), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Challenged Provision: Section 25 (Permanent Alimony and Maintenance)

---

Background of the Case:

• Marriage solemnized: 08.05.2009 under Hindu rituals.

• Divorce Petition: Filed under Section 13(1)(ia) – on the ground of cruelty.

• Ex-Parte Divorce Decree: Granted by the First Additional Judge, Garoth on 17.07.2023.

• Maintenance Ordered: Rs. 12,000/month to the wife under Section 25 of HMA.

• Appeal filed by Husband: Only against the alimony part of the order.

---

Core Legal Issue:

Whether the trial court was justified in granting permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, despite no formal application or demand being made by the wife in the written statement or otherwise?

---

Key Observations & Legal Reasoning:

1. No Application Under Section 25 at Trial Stage:

   • The wife neither appeared nor filed a written statement.

   • The trial court still granted permanent alimony of Rs. 12,000 per month.

2. Conflicting Judicial Opinions Noted:

   • Various High Courts (Bombay, Madras, Punjab & Haryana) and even M.P. High Court (in some cases) have held that an oral application or even an implied prayer in the written statement is enough.

   • However, in the case of Abhishek Parashar v. Neha Parashar (2023), the Division Bench of MPHC held that a formal application is necessary, based on precedents from:

     • Jitbandhan case (1982)

     • Chhaya Kshatriya

     • Mahesh Prasad

     • Manoj v. Raksha

3. Doctrine of Precedent Followed:

   • As per a five-judge bench in Jabalpur Bus Operators Assn., earlier Division Bench decisions must be followed unless explained by a larger bench.

4. Supreme Court’s View Considered:

   • Vinny Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar (AIR 2011 SC 2748) emphasizes that while determining maintenance:

     • Factors like income, property, status, conduct, and needs of both parties must be considered.

     • No fixed formula for maintenance, must be decided on facts of each case.

---

Final Judgment & Outcome:

• The High Court held that:

  “Without an application in the written statement or separately filed, the trial court could not have granted permanent alimony.”

• Para 17(2) of the impugned decree dated 17.07.2023 was quashed.

• Decree modified accordingly.

---

Key Legal Principles Derived:

1. Mandatory Requirement of Application:

   • A request (written or oral) under Section 25 is mandatory to claim alimony.

   • It may be made through:

     • A separate formal application, or

     • Prayer in the written statement (if party contests proceedings).

2. Broad Interpretation v. Technical Requirement:

   • Courts have increasingly leaned toward a practical approach in matrimonial matters.

   • However, MP High Court's binding precedent still requires at least some form of application.

3. Maintenance is Not Automatic:

   • Even though Section 25 is protective in nature, courts cannot grant it suo motu without a specific request.

---

Conclusion:

This judgment reiterates the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, especially in cases involving permanent alimony. It strikes a balance between judicial discretion and the necessity for a formal claim under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, safeguarding both legal consistency and fairness in matrimonial litigation.

---