Hyderabad: Telangana high court has ruled that a divorced woman seeking permanent alimony must file a specific application under the Hindu Marriage Act and cannot seek the relief under provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, while dismissing an appeal by a woman who sought Rs 50 lakh as permanent alimony from her advocate-husband.Upholding a family court order granting divorce, a division bench comprising Justice K Lakshman and Justice BR Madhusudhan Rao found that the woman had neither followed the prescribed legal procedure nor produced material to substantiate her claims regarding her husband’s income and assets.The couple, residents of Nizamabad, got married in 2007 and have a child. Owing to matrimonial disputes, they have been living separately since 2011.The appellant contended that she was entitled to permanent alimony from her husband. She argued that as an advocate, he was earning substantial income and possessed considerable assets and properties, making him financially capable of supporting her.She further alleged that her husband was “earning lot of money and therefore, she is entitled for the alimony” and sought permanent maintenance to secure her livelihood.Opposing the plea, the husband argued that the appellant had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act for claiming permanent alimony. He submitted that she had neither filed the required application at the appropriate stage nor sought alimony during the earlier proceedings.He further contended that the appellant had failed to place any credible evidence on record to establish the existence, nature or value of the assets and properties allegedly owned by him.Examining the rival submissions, the high court observed that the appellant had not filed the necessary application as mandated under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. The bench also noted that she had not raised any claim for alimony at the initial stage of the proceedings and had not offered a satisfactory explanation for the omission.The absence of a timely application, the court held, was a significant procedural lapse that could not be ignored.The bench further observed that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proving her husband’s financial status. Mere assertions that he, being an advocate, owned substantial assets and properties were insufficient in the absence of documentary evidence or other cogent material, the court said.Emphasising that such claims must be established through proof and not presumption, the court held that the appellant had neither complied with the statutory requirements nor substantiated her allegations.Finding no merit in the plea, the high court dismissed the woman’s appeal seeking permanent alimony.
