Karnataka HC Cuts Alimony from Rs 2 Crore to Rs 50 Lakh, Upholds Divorce on Cruelty Ground
The High Court of Karnataka confirmed a Family Court divorce decree, found cumulative cruelty proved, and sharply reduced permanent alimony to Rs 50 lakh given the wife's independent medical income.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, comprising Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan, on 24 August 2026 dismissed the husband's appeal against a Family Court decree of divorce while substantially reducing the permanent alimony awarded to the wife. The Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, had dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and had awarded the wife Rs 2 crore as permanent alimony. The Division Bench, writing through Justice Shanthi Bhushan, upheld the finding of cruelty but reduced the alimony to Rs 50 lakh, holding that permanent alimony is not intended to equalise the wealth of the parties and that the wife's professional qualification and independent income as a doctor were relevant factors. The bench also restructured child maintenance and issued detailed directions on custody, visitation, and relocation.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The parties, who were college mates, married on 23 May 2011 at Gopalakrishna Sabha Bhavan, Shakthi Nagar, Mangaluru. They later moved to the United Kingdom, where two daughters were born. Matrimonial discord developed on foreign soil and the parties eventually returned to India. The wife filed M.C. No. 81/2022 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband contested the petition and filed a counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.
By its judgment and decree dated 20 January 2026, the Family Court allowed the wife's petition, dissolved the marriage, dismissed the husband's counter-claim with costs, and directed him to pay Rs 2 crore as permanent alimony within three months at 6% simple interest on default, Rs 25,000 per month as child maintenance with an enhancement of Rs 5,000 every two years, and Rs 50,000 as costs. Aggrieved, the husband preferred MFA No. 1575/2026 before the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act.
What Each Side Alleged
The wife alleged that the husband was controlling, objected to her professional career and higher education, physically assaulted her on several occasions, behaved abusively towards her and her parents, and was particularly hostile during her pregnancies and after the birth of the children. She further contended that the husband repeatedly alleged she suffered from mental illness and used those allegations in the children's custody proceedings in the United Kingdom. She described the removal of her deceased father's photograph from the matrimonial home as a distinct act of mental cruelty. Her claim of Rs 5 crore permanent alimony was based on the duration of the marriage, custody of two children, and the disparity in income.
The husband denied all allegations of cruelty and maintained he had been a supportive spouse who had financially supported the wife's medical education and encouraged her career. He attributed the matrimonial difficulties to the wife's emotional and psychological issues and to the interference of her parents and uncles. He contended that the parties had reconciled after counselling in 2018, had their second child thereafter, and that any earlier conduct had therefore been condoned. He argued the Rs 2 crore alimony award was excessive and that the wife, being a qualified medical professional with substantial independent assets, had no financial need warranting such a lump sum.
How the Family Court Assessed the Evidence
The Family Court framed six points for determination. It answered in the wife's favour on cruelty, her entitlement to alimony, and dissolution of marriage, and against the husband on his restitution counter-claim.
The most significant evidence was a series of WhatsApp conversations marked Exhibits P11 to P14 and P38. The Family Court found that the conversations disclosed physical assaults, abusive conduct, hostility towards the wife's parents, and, critically, admissions and expressions of regret by the husband regarding having physically hit the wife. Not all allegations were accepted: the claim that she had been kept captive in the matrimonial home was not proved through PW-2, and the allegation that she had been prevented from contacting her parents was not accepted in light of photographs produced by the husband.
On the mental-illness allegations, the Family Court held that making repeated and unsubstantiated allegations of mental illness against the wife, including in custody proceedings, itself constituted mental cruelty. The husband's own admission that he had not consulted a psychiatrist about the wife's alleged condition for several years after the marriage weakened his case on that point.
The Family Court rejected the condonation argument, holding that even if earlier acts of cruelty had been condoned after the 2018 reconciliation, subsequent conduct could revive the cause of action, and it found sufficient post-2018 cruelty on the record. On alimony, it noted the husband's income at approximately Rs 70 lakh per annum and substantial investments, the wife's net income of approximately Rs 1.22 lakh per month, the long duration of the marriage, and the husband's litigation expenditure of approximately Rs 84 lakh in the United Kingdom. It awarded Rs 2 crore rather than the claimed Rs 5 crore.
How the Division Bench Reasoned
The Division Bench engaged with each argument advanced on behalf of the husband. On cruelty, the bench held that evidence must be assessed not by isolating individual incidents but by looking at the matrimonial relationship as a whole and the cumulative effect of the parties' conduct. It found that the wife's version received substantial support from contemporaneous WhatsApp communications, some of which contained admissions and expressions of regret by the husband. The husband's explanations and the material he produced regarding the wife's emotional outbursts did not, in the court's view, satisfactorily displace the petitioner's evidence.
On condonation, the bench acknowledged that the parties had undergone counselling, resumed cohabitation, and had a second child. However, it held that an attempt to save the marriage cannot obliterate subsequent conduct or compel parties to continue a relationship which has become embittered beyond repair. The record showed that the discord continued and became progressively more serious after the reconciliation, with disputes over the children and proceedings in the United Kingdom following.
The bench observed that a dispute which began in Mangaluru had travelled to the United Kingdom and returned to India, eventually reaching the High Court. It found this trajectory, combined with prolonged separation and the bitterness between the parties, to be a telling indication of the extent of the matrimonial breakdown. The bench stated that “the object of matrimonial jurisdiction is not to perpetuate a relationship which has become a continuing source of anguish and litigation.”
On permanent alimony, the bench agreed with the husband that Rs 2 crore was on the higher side. It drew on the Supreme Court's observations in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 on the factors governing maintenance, noting that the petitioner was a qualified medical professional, employed, with an independent source of income and her own financial assets. The bench emphasised that “permanent alimony is not intended to equalise the assets or wealth of the parties” but to ensure the wife can maintain herself with reasonable dignity. It also referred to Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303 on the duty of an able-bodied husband to maintain his wife, and to Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, while ultimately reducing the award to Rs 50 lakh.
On child maintenance, the bench distinguished the children's welfare from the wife's alimony claim. Referring to Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3822 and the child-support guidelines in Rajnesh, it held that both parents share responsibility for the children's education, medical needs, and living expenses. It increased the per-child monthly maintenance from Rs 25,000 (total) to Rs 25,000 per child (total Rs 50,000 per month), with an annual enhancement of Rs 5,000 per child.
Order
The Division Bench disposed of the appeal with the following directions:
Permanent alimony: Reduced from Rs 2 crore to Rs 50 lakh, payable within three months of receipt of the order, failing which simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of the decree shall apply.
Child maintenance: The husband shall deposit Rs 25,000 per month per child (total Rs 50,000 per month) into a joint bank account to be opened by the mother jointly with each child's name, on or before the 10th of every calendar month. The amount stands enhanced by Rs 5,000 per child per year until each child attains majority.
Arrears: Any arrears of maintenance for the wife or children as determined by the Family Court shall be paid within one month of receipt of the order.
Custody and visitation: The mother shall have exclusive physical custody. The father shall have visitation rights every Saturday and Sunday for three hours each day at a mutually convenient place. He shall also have telephonic or video-call access on an emergency basis.
Relocation restriction: The mother shall not temporarily or permanently relocate the children outside India without prior intimation to the father and without obtaining appropriate orders from the competent court where legally required. She shall keep the father informed of any change in the children's residence or educational institution.
Marriage expenses: The husband shall, at the appropriate time and to the extent of his financial capacity, contribute reasonably towards the marriage expenses of each child.
Best interests: Both parties were directed to refrain from making disparaging remarks against each other in the presence or hearing of the children and to ensure the children maintain a loving relationship with both parents.
The divorce decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, on 20 January 2026 dissolving the marriage solemnised on 23 May 2011 stands confirmed. The husband's counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights stands dismissed.