In a recent judgment dated 1 April 2026, the Rajasthan High Court<\/a><\/strong> at Jodhpur, led by Justice Arun Monga<\/strong> and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit<\/strong>, dealt with a dispute where both husband and wife challenged the permanent alimony of \u20b925 lakh after divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife demanded a massive increase up to \u20b92 crore<\/strong>, claiming the husband earned lakhs every month, while the husband argued that even \u20b925 lakh was excessive and based on false claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On one side, the wife escalated her claim dramatically, alleging that the husband earned \u20b98\u201310 lakh per month. On the other side, the husband argued that these figures were exaggerated and unsupported<\/strong>, and that he was already burdened with responsibilities, including a bedridden mother and a disabled brother.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court did acknowledge that the husband has financial obligations towards his dependent family. However, it still observed that these liabilities \u201care not of such overwhelming magnitude as to substantially erode his capacity\u201d<\/em><\/strong> to pay alimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband also raised a critical legal point \u2014 that both sons are adults and capable of supporting their mother. Yet, the Court did not accept this as a ground to reduce the wife\u2019s entitlement and clarified that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMajority and earning capacity of the sons\u2026 does not substantially dilute the wife’s entitlement.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This effectively means that even where adult children exist, the financial responsibility can still continue on the husband, reinforcing how long-term liability often remains one-sided<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, the Court did reject the wife\u2019s extreme demand of \u20b92 crore and warned against misuse of alimony provisions<\/strong>. It clearly stated that courts must avoid turning maintenance into a financial windfall and emphasized:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat is required is a balanced, realistic, and equitable determination, which neither unduly burdens the husband nor leaves the wife in a state of financial vulnerability.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n After evaluating all factors \u2014 long marriage duration, years of separation, income, assets, and future needs \u2014 the Court concluded that \u20b925 lakh was insufficient and enhanced the amount to \u20b940 lakh, directing the husband to pay within six months<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, the husband was directed to continue paying \u20b945,000 per month until full payment is made<\/strong>, further extending the financial pressure during the transition period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This case highlights a deeper structural issue. Even when exaggerated claims are rejected, the financial burden does not disappear \u2014 it only gets recalibrated. The husband still remains the primary financial source, irrespective of adult children, shared responsibilities, or his own dependent family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How It Was Used In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Divorce on grounds like cruelty\/desertion<\/td> Marriage already dissolved under this provision<\/td><\/tr> Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Permanent alimony and maintenance<\/td> Central issue \u2013 \u20b925 lakh awarded and challenged<\/td><\/tr> Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Interim maintenance during proceedings<\/td> Clarified as not applicable for final alimony<\/td><\/tr> Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Restitution of conjugal rights<\/td> Husband claimed he filed earlier<\/td><\/tr> Section 125, CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Maintenance for wife\/children\/parents<\/td> Court clarified applies mainly to dependents, not adult sons<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956<\/strong><\/td> Defines maintenance obligations<\/td> Used to clarify no liability for major, able-bodied children<\/td><\/tr> Sections 107 & 116, CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Preventive action for breach of peace<\/td> Earlier proceedings referenced by wife<\/td><\/tr> Sections 498A<\/a>, 406, 323, 120B IPC<\/strong><\/td> Cruelty, criminal breach of trust, hurt, conspiracy<\/td> FIR filed by wife; part of background facts<\/td><\/tr> Domestic Violence Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Protection and maintenance rights<\/td> Interim maintenance \u20b912,000 granted earlier<\/td><\/tr> Section 152 CPC<\/strong><\/td> Correction of clerical errors in judgments<\/td> Mentioned regarding correction in trial court order<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n