REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.  5831-5833         OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20518-20520 of 2009

Vinny Parmvir Parmar       .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Parmvir Parmar               .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These  appeals  are  filed  against  the  final  order  dated  

24.04.2009 passed by the High Court of  Bombay in Family  

Court Appeal Nos. 110 of 2004 and 127 of 2004 and the order  

dated 17.07.2009 in Review Petition Stamp No. 15671 of 2009  

whereby the appellant’s appeal was dismissed in entirety and  

the petition filed by the respondent in Family Court for divorce  

on ground of  cruelty  was converted into  divorce  by  mutual  

1

consent and the  marriage  was dissolved by a decree under  

Section  13-B  of  the  Hindu  Marriage  Act,  1955  (hereinafter  

referred to as “the Act”).

3) Since  the  parties  have  dissolved  their  marriage  by  

consent and a fresh decree of  divorce by consent has been  

directed, the other question adjudicated before the High Court  

was about the amount of maintenance/permanent alimony in  

terms of Section 25 of the Act.  By the impugned order, the  

High Court confirmed the order passed by the Family Court  

fixing the amount of permanent alimony at Rs. 20,000/- per  

month.   While  disposing  of  the  appeals,  as  an  alternative  

measure, the High Court also fixed the amount of permanent  

alimony  at  Rs.  20  lakhs  in  lump  sum  to  be  paid  by  the  

husband to his wife within a period of 3 months from the date  

of the order.  Being not satisfied with the maintenance fixed at  

Rs. 20,000/- per month, the appellant-wife filed these appeals  

for  enhancement  by  pointing  out  her  difficulties  and  the  

income of the respondent.

2

4) Heard Mr. Nidish Gupta, learned senior counsel for the  

appellant-wife and Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel  

for the respondent-husband.

5)  The only point for consideration in these appeals is what  

would be the reasonable amount the appellant-wife is entitled  

by way of maintenance from the husband in terms of Section  

25 of the Act.

6)  Considering the fact that after the marriage the appellant  

herein resigned from the post of Air Hostess in Cathay Pacific  

Airlines and after dispute between them she was not employed  

and getting regular income, she was staying with her sister at  

Mumbai  and also taking note  of  the  financial  status of  the  

husband, namely, his salary as a Sr. Commander in Air India  

and rental income from his properties, the Family Court fixed  

maintenance at Rs. 20,000/- per month which was affirmed  

by the High Court.   While arriving at such amount, the Family  

Court  has  determined  the  income  of  the  husband  as  

Rs. 1,40,000/-  per month.   

3

Discussion:

7) Mr.  Nidish  Gupta,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

appellant, by drawing our attention to various factual details  

placed before the Family Court, High Court and in this Court,  

submitted that from the salary slips it is seen that even after  

income tax deductions the respondent’s  income from salary  

and allowances alone for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010  

was  Rs.  83,19,031/-.   In  support  of  the  above  claim,  the  

appellant  has  produced  TDS  certificate  issued  by  his  

employer/the  Income-Tax  Department.   According  to  him,  

apart from the above salary income, the respondent has rental  

income  between  Rs.  7,20,000  and  Rs.  10,80,000  from  his  

properties.   He  further  highlighted  that  in  addition  to  the  

salary and the rental income, the respondent has huge bank  

deposits,  investment  in  shares and mutual  funds.   He also  

highlighted that the respondent being 42 years of age and a  

Sr. Commander in Air India has a promising career with bright  

chances of further promotions.  With these facts and figures,  

Mr.  Nidish  Gupta  prayed  for  intervention  of  this  Court  by  

4

fixing reasonable amount towards maintenance and welfare of  

the appellant.   

8) In reply to the same, Ms Indu Malhotra, learned senior  

counsel  for  the  respondent-husband  submitted  that  the  

figures furnished by the appellant before the courts below as  

well as in this Court are exaggerated.  In any event, according  

to her, the income shown above includes allowance and other  

benefits which cannot be construed as actual salary or income  

as claimed.  She also pointed out that apart from the salary  

from Air India he owns 1 acre of land in Pune and 1 Bedroom  

flat in Mumbai.  All other properties, according to the learned  

senior counsel, belong to his father and he is not entitled for  

anything from it at this moment.  She further highlighted that  

at  present  respondent-husband  has  married  and  having  a  

child  apart  from  taking  care  of  his  parents.   She  finally  

submitted that the amount determined by the Family Court as  

affirmed by the High Court is quite reasonable and, therefore,  

there  is  no  valid  ground  for  interference  by  this  Court  

exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of  

India.   

5

9) Before considering the rival  claims based on facts and  

figures,  it  is  useful  to refer to  Section 25 of  the  Act  which  

reads as under:-

“ 25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.- (1) Any court  exercising  jurisdiction  under  this  Act  may,  at  the  time  of  passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on  application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or  the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent  shall  pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and  support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum  for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having  regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if  any,  the  income  and other  property  of  the  applicant,  the  conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case,  it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment  may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable  property of the respondent.

 (2)  If  the  court  is  satisfied  that  there  is  a  change  in  the  circumstances of either party at any time after it has made  an order under sub-section (1),  it  may, at the instance of  either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such  manner as the court may deem just.

 (3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an  order has been made under this section has remarried or, if  such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or,  if  such  party  is  the  husband,  that  he  has  had  sexual  intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the  instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such  order in such manner as the Court may deem just.”

10)    In Shri Bhagwan Dutt vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and Anr.  

(1975)  2  SCC  386,  though  this  Court  has  considered  the  

amount of maintenance payable to wife under Section 488 of  

6

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the principle laid down  

is applicable to the case on hand.  In para 19, this Court held:

“19. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy  and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is  required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is  neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent  with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of  the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined,  only  if  her  separate  income,  also,  is  taken  into  account  together  with  the  earnings  of  the  husband  and  his  commitments.”

11)  In  Chaturbhuj vs.  Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, which  

also  relates  to  maintenance  claim  by  deserted  wife  under  

Section 125 of  the Code of  Criminal  Procedure, 1973.  The  

following  statement  in  para  8  is  relevant  which  reads  as  

under:

“…..Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she  can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The test is  whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the  way  she  was  used  to  in  the  place  of  her  husband.  In  Bhagwan Dutt v.  Kamla Devi it was observed that the wife  should  be  in  a  position  to  maintain  a  standard  of  living  which  is  neither  luxurious  nor  penurious  but  what  is  consistent with status of a family. The expression “unable to  maintain  herself”  does  not  mean  that  the  wife  must  be  absolutely  destitute  before she can apply  for  maintenance  under Section 125 CrPC.”

7

12)   As  per  Section  25,  while  considering  the  claim  for  

permanent  alimony  and  maintenance  of  either  spouse,  the  

respondent’s own income and other property, and the income  

and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in  

addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances  

of the case.  It is further seen that the court considering such  

claim has  to  consider  all  the  above  relevant  materials  and  

determine the amount which is to be just for living standard.  

No  fixed  formula  can  be  laid  for  fixing  the  amount  of  

maintenance.   It  has  to  be  in  the  nature  of  things  which  

depend on various facts and circumstances of each case.  The  

court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective  

needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to  

reasonable  expenses  for  his  own  maintenance  and  others  

whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute.  

The courts also have to take note of the fact that the amount  

of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can  

live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of  

life she was used to live when she lived with her husband.  At  

the same time,  the amount so fixed cannot  be excessive or  

8

affect the living condition of the other party.  These are all the  

broad  principles  courts  have  to  be  kept  in  mind  while  

determining maintenance or permanent alimony.  

13)   It  is  not  in  dispute  that  before  their  marriage,  the  

appellant-wife was working as Air Hostess with Cathay Pacific  

Airlines and getting sizeable income.  It is also brought to our  

notice that after marriage, at the instance of the respondent,  

she  resigned  from her  job.   The  particulars  furnished  also  

show that at present she is living with her sister at Mumbai  

and she does not possess any immovable property at Mumbai.  

14)  According to the respondent-husband, at the time of filing  

of petition under Section 25, she suppressed her employment  

and income thereon and on this ground her entire case has to  

be rejected.  The fact remains, though she was employed for a  

shorter  period  which  was  not  stated  so  subsequently,  she  

clarified that she had earned only an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs  

from casual assignments from July, 2004 to September, 2009.  

She also asserted that her income was not fixed or regular and  

she  is  struggling  to  take  up  casual  assignments  of  interior  

decoration even though she was not formally trained for the  

9

same.   She  also  explained  that  at  particular  time  her  

employment  with  JJ Valaya Couture  was only  transitory  in  

nature and was not permanent, it was not a source of regular  

and permanent  income for  her  and that  she  had not  been  

issued even any letter of appointment setting out the terms of  

employment  and she  further  explained  that  at  the  relevant  

time she was earning an ad hoc remuneration of Rs. 20,000/-  

per month.  There is no reason to either reject or disbelieve her  

explanation.   In the same way,  though she had highlighted  

salary  income  of  the  respondent,  admittedly,  those  figures  

include allowances and other payments under various heads  

of  salary.   The respondent has also placed certificates from  

income tax authorities such as Form 16C etc.      

15) In the light of the details furnished by both the parties,  

we  are  of  the  view  that  the  amount  of  Rs.  1,40,000/-  

determined as net monthly income of the respondent-husband  

is  not  acceptable.   Equally,  direction  for  payment  of  

maintenance  at  the  rate  of  Rs.  20,000/-  per  month  to  the  

appellant-wife is also inadequate.  It is relevant to point out  

that the status of the appellant before her marriage is also one  

1

of  the  relevant  factors  for  determining  the  amount  of  

maintenance.   It  is  not  in dispute that  before her marriage  

with the respondent, she was working as an Air Hostess in  

Cathay Pacific Airlines and after marriage she resigned from  

the  said  post.   Considering  the  conditions  prescribed  in  

Section  25  of  the  Act  relating  to  claim  of  permanent  

alimony/maintenance and the fact that the appellant is not  

permanently employed as on date and residing with her sister  

at Mumbai, taking note of the respondent’s income from salary  

as Sr. Commander in Air India, other properties standing in  

his name, age being 42 years, future employment prospects  

and also considering the fact that the respondent re-married,  

having a child and also to look after his parents, we feel that  

the ends of justice would be met by fixing maintenance at the  

rate  of  Rs.40,000/-  per  month  instead  of  Rs.20,000/-  per  

month as fixed by the Family Court and affirmed by the High  

Court.   The  same  shall  be  payable  from  the  date  of  her  

application and continue to pay in terms of Section 25 of the  

Act.  The respondent is granted one year time from 01.08.2011  

to pay all the arrears payable in six equal instalments.  It is  

1

made clear that if there is any change in the circumstance of  

either party, they are free to approach the Court concerned to  

modify or rescind.  As suggested and fixed by the High Court,  

in  the  alternative,  we  fix  the  amount  of  permanent  

alimony/maintenance at Rs. 40 lakhs in lump sum to be paid  

by  the  respondent  within  a  period  of  six  months  from  

01.08.2011 which will forfeit  all her claims.  The respondent  

is free to opt any one mode to comply with the same.  If the  

respondent opts the first method, the same is subject to the  

conditions prescribed in sub-Section (3) of Section 25 of the  

Act.     The  appeals  are  allowed  to  the  extent  mentioned  

hereinabove.  No order as to costs.

                                         .…………………………J.            (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

 .…....…………………………………J.    (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)  

NEW DELHI; JULY 20, 2011.                    

1