The Patna High Court has held that a wife’s independent income does not automatically disentitle her from permanent alimony, especially when a significant financial disparity exists between the spouses. The Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha affirmed a Trial Court order directing a husband, a Dubai-based Chartered Accountant, to pay ₹25,00,000 as a one-time settlement.
Background of the Case
The respondent-wife and the appellant-husband were married on February 3, 2012. Following matrimonial discord, the Family Court at Ara granted a decree of divorce in Matrimonial Case No. 161 of 2006 (decided on May 5, 2016). Along with the dissolution of marriage, the Trial Court directed the husband to pay ₹20,00,000 to the wife and ₹5,00,000 to their minor son as permanent alimony.
The husband appealed this order, contending that the alimony was excessive and unjust because the wife had a substantial independent income and he had significant liabilities, including a second family and elderly parents.
Arguments by the Parties
For the Appellant (Husband): The appellant’s counsel argued that the wife is a “social media influencer,” “Tarot Card Reader,” and author who earns approximately ₹60,000 to ₹80,000 per month. He contended that under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alimony is meant to prevent destitution, not to provide a “windfall” to a self-sufficient spouse. He relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri (2025) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda (2024), which emphasize assessing the wife’s own earning capacity.
For the Respondent (Wife): The respondent’s counsel submitted that while she earns about ₹80,000 per month, she bears the entire academic and personal expenses of their 13-year-old son, which amount to over ₹35,000 monthly. She alleged that the husband, working as a CA in Dubai, had suppressed his true income, which she claimed is much higher than the ₹1.5 lakh per month he admitted to earning.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court scrutinized the affidavits of assets and liabilities. It observed that while the wife does have an independent income, the “equitable nature” of Section 25 requires the court to ensure financial justice. The Bench noted:
“Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is fundamentally equitable in nature and aims to secure financial justice between spouses ensuring that a parting lacking independent means of subsistence is not left destitute following the dissolution of marriage. However, the grant of such relief is not automatic; it is contingent upon proof of genuine financial necessity and equitable considerations.”
The Court performed a comparative analysis of the parties’ status. It noted that the husband is a Chartered Accountant—a profession with high earning potential—working in Dubai. Applying the principle that a wife is entitled to approximately one-third of the husband’s income, the court noted:
“One third of 1,50,000/- is Rs. 50,000/- per month and Rs. 6,00,000/- per annum… considering appellant’s length of work up to 60 years, then the amount of permanent alimony comes to Rs. 1,02,00,000/-. The Trial Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 25,00,000/-… The said sum is Rs. 77,00,000/- less than what the respondent ought to have claimed.”
The Court concluded that the Trial Court had likely already considered the wife’s independent earnings when it fixed the alimony at the relatively lower sum of ₹25 lakh.
Decision
The Division Bench found no merit in the husband’s appeal, ruling that the amount was “not at all excessive or unjust considering the status of the respective parties.” The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s decree and directed the appellant to pay the full amount within 90 days.
Case Details
Case Title: Puneet Agarwal @ Punit Agarwal vs. Ankita Agarwal @ Ankita Jain @ Ankita
Case No.: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 991 of 2017
Bench: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha
Date: 05-05-2026
