Hidden live-in partner leads to Rs 50 lakh payout: Why Jharkhand High Court hiked alimony for ‘defrauded’ wife

“Since the status of prior live-in-relationship of the respondent/husband with other lady has not been disclosed to the appellant wife, therefore, it may be inferred herein that consent of the petitioner/appellant/wife and her guardian was obtained by practicing fraud by the respondent/husband as required under 12(1)(C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,” the January 22 order said.

The provision allows for the annulment of a marriage if consent is obtained by force or fraud.

The husband has the capacity to pay a higher amount than that awarded by the family court, said the Jharkhand High Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

Key observations

• The family court held that the wife was subjected to cruelty and torture and allowed her plea while referring to Section 12(1) (c) of the Act.
• Family court’s finding on the annulment of the marriage not perverse and its judgment of February 16, 2017 is affirmed.
• An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family.
• Onus on the husband to establish with necessary material, sufficient grounds, to show he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control.
• If husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court.
• The husband in this case has the capacity to pay a higher amount than that awarded by the family court.
• Although the wife claims to be unemployed, she is highly qualified and can earn and sustain herself.
• Therefore, a balanced approach, weighing the respondent’s capacity and the appellant’s needs, must be adopted.
• No arithmetic formula can be adopted for the grant of permanent alimony to a wife.
• However, the status of parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations must be taken into account.
• The husband is earning around Rs 1.56 lakh per month and in his affidavit has not mentioned any liability except the purchase of a flat, on the basis of a home loan.
• The wife is an advocate by profession, but she is still depending upon her father for her financial needs.
• We find it just and equitable to enhance the permanent alimony to Rs 50 lakh as a one-time settlement.
• This amount will reasonably secure her future and ensure a standard of living commensurate with her circumstances.
• The amount of Rs 50 lakh shall be paid in five equal monthly instalments between February and June 2026.
• Under the Hindu Law, a marriage is not a contract but a sacrament.
• Hindu Marriage Act has made an inroad into the close preserve of the ancient Hindu Law, strongly suggesting the marriage as a sacrament and not a contract, which still goes strong.

Background

• The couple married on December 2, 2015, in accordance with Hindu rites.
• According to the wife, substantial amounts of cash, jewellery, and other valuables were transferred by her family before and at the time of marriage, allegedly at the insistence of the husband and his relatives.
• Within a short span after marriage, the wife alleged that she discovered that the husband had been in a prior live-in relationship, a fact which had been concealed from her and her family.
• She further alleged persistent demands for additional dowry, mental and physical harassment, and ultimately being forced out of her matrimonial home on March 2, 2016, after barely three months of cohabitation.
• In 2016, the wife approached the family court at Garhwa seeking annulment of marriage on the ground that her consent had been obtained by fraud and concealment of material facts.
• She also sought permanent alimony and return of her stridhan.
• Despite service of summons, the husband failed to appear before the family court, leading to ex parte proceedings.
• On February 16, 2017, the family court annulled the marriage and directed the husband to pay Rs 30 lakh as permanent alimony.
• Both parties challenged the family court’s decision in the high court.
• The wife, through first appeal filed in 2019, argued that the alimony amount was inadequately fixed, without proper assessment of the husband’s income, assets, and social status.
• The husband, through first appeal filed in 2018, questioned the legality of the ex parte proceedings and contended that he lacked the financial capacity to pay such a large amount.
• He also argued that the wife was professionally qualified and capable of earning on her own.

Arguments

• Advocate Ashish Gautam, appearing for the wife, submitted that the husband and her in-laws concealed the fact that he was leading a live-in relationship with another woman.
• The marital life of this petitioner was devoid of conjugal happiness and pleasure since the first day of marriage.
• The counsel said that the wife tried to accept the live-in-relationship of her husband with another woman and tried to adjust herself in such an environment.
• Soon, a demand of Rs 15 lakh in cash was made by the husband and other members of his family, which was declined by the wife and her family.
• She has been a subject of physical and mental torture at the hands of her estranged husband and other members of his family in order to fulfil the demand of more dowry.
• While fixing the permanent alimony, no formula was followed, and a lump sum amount was fixed without giving any reason.
• The family court, while deciding the issue of alimony, has not considered the total amount of the income received by the husband.
• The amount of permanent alimony as determined by the family court requires interference by the high court.
• Opposing the submissions, advocate Pankaj Srivastava submitted that the family court’s judgment is bad in law.
• The counsel said that the family court’s decision deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
• He said that the family court erred in taking the judicial note that no summons or notice had been served to the husband and proceeded in the suit as ex-parte only on the basis of the track record of the postal service filed by the wife.
• The counsel added that the family court overlooked and failed to consider the baseless allegations of the wife in her written defence.