By: Express News ServiceVadodara | December 10, 2025 03:22 AM IST 4 min readThe HC directed the respondent husband to deposit the remaining outstanding amount of the maintenance to the wife.The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed the petition of a woman seeking enhancement in the alimony granted by the family court while passing the decree of divorce with her husband of 23 years and an order for alimony in May 2024. The court accepted the submissions of the husband that he did not have a high-paying job and had the responsibility of his parents as well as his son, who was studying computer engineering.Incidentally, the couple’s marriage, solemnized in March 2002, had fallen apart due to differences over consumption of onion and garlic as the wife followed a particular Swaminarayan religious sect while the husband’s family did not follow any dietary restriction. The husband had filed an application under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the family court on the ground that he had been subjected to cruelty and the wife had deserted him, when she left their matrimonial home with her child. The family court, while awarding the decree of divorce, passed an order in May 2024, granting a monthly maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month for the period of July 2013 to July 2020 and thereafter enhanced the maintenance to Rs 10,000 per month July 2020 onwards. The woman had contended that the maintenance had not been paid for 18 months.In her petition before the HC, the woman’s counsel submitted the woman was not challenging the aspect of divorce as the dissolution of marriage was acceptable to her but the grievance was regarding the quantum of alimony. The oral order of Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Nisha Thakore of the Gujarat High Court, delivered November 27, notes the submissions made by the woman petitioner that her husband was a partner in a fabrication factory owned by his father and earned Rs 80,000 to Rs 1 lakh per month while the woman had no “independent income to maintain herself”.In the submissions made by the husband, it was contended that the woman was qualified and can maintain herself as she is earning Rs 15,000 per month and had suppressed the fact. The High Court order also noted the family court judge, while deciding the maintenance amount, had considered that the woman had, in a statement submitted in a previous criminal complaint, also stated she was working. The respondent husband had contended his mother used to cook separate food for the petitioner – without onion and garlic – while the food for other family members was cooked with onion and garlic. However, “owing to the rigidness exhibited by the appellant-wife, applications were filed before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. Besides, owing to the pressure exerted (by the wife), the respondent-husband, was compelled to file an application with the Mahila Police Station, Bhadra, stating about the torture and harassment by the appellant-wife.”Contesting the claim of the wife regarding the monthly income, the husband submitted documents before the High Court to state his annual income between 2014 to 2019 stood at Rs 62,718 per month. The HC order notes, “Moreover, it is not in dispute that the respondent is residing in a house consisting of one room and kitchen, which indicates his financial status. Moreover, the undisputed fact is that the respondent being the only son has the responsibility of his parents, so also his son, who now has attained maturity and is pursuing his masters in Computer Engineering… Exercising the discretion and keeping in mind the principles of granting permanent maintenance, the respondent was ordered to pay (the) amount…”The HC order states since the advocates “could not point out anything contrary or could suggest that the findings arrived at by the learned Judge (of the Family court), are perverse or illegal, this Court is of the opinion that no error can be said to have been committed in allowing the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife.” The court order also noted the submission of the advocate of the husband that he was willing to offer her a lump sum amount as permanent alimony but the “offer was not accepted” by the wife.The HC directed the respondent husband to deposit the remaining outstanding amount of the maintenance to the wife.Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:Gujarat High CourtVadodara