The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a woman’s plea seeking enhanced alimony, affirming the family court’s earlier decision granting maintenance of ₹8,000 per month for the period between July 2013 and July 2020, and ₹10,000 per month thereafter. The couple, married in 2002, had separated over long-standing differences, including dietary practices concerning the consumption of onion and garlic.
Marital discord linked to religious dietary beliefs
Court documents reveal that the wife, a follower of a Swaminarayan religious sect, adhered strictly to an onion- and garlic-free diet, while the husband’s family did not practise such restrictions. Initially, the husband’s mother cooked separate meals to accommodate her preferences. However, according to the husband, the situation escalated into allegations of “rigidity,” emotional strain and repeated disputes.
The relationship deteriorated further when the wife left the matrimonial home in 2013 with the couple’s child. The husband then filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming cruelty and desertion.
In May 2024, the Ahmedabad family court granted a decree of divorce and ordered monthly maintenance, prompting appeals from both sides: the husband challenged the maintenance order while the wife contested the quantum.
Wife seeks higher alimony; husband cites modest income and family responsibilities
Before the High Court, the wife’s counsel clarified that she was not challenging the divorce itself, but only the alimony amount. She argued that the maintenance was inadequate as she had no independent means to support herself. She also claimed that the husband earned ₹80,000 to ₹1 lakh per month through his role in a fabrication business.
The husband countered this claim, submitting income tax documents showing that his monthly income between 2014 and 2019 averaged ₹62,718. He further stated that he was the sole earner for a household consisting of his parents and his son, who is now pursuing a Master’s degree in Computer Engineering.
The High Court order states that the respondent lives in a modest one-room-and-kitchen home, reflecting his financial capacity.
The husband also accused the wife of suppressing facts, pointing out an earlier statement in a criminal complaint where she had declared her own income of ₹15,000 per month. The family court had taken this into account when fixing the maintenance.
High Court finds no grounds for enhancement
A division bench of Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Nisha Thakore examined the submissions and found no error in the family court’s reasoning. The judges observed that neither side was able to demonstrate why the maintenance calculation should be altered, nor point to any legal infirmity.
The court also noted the husband’s earlier offer to pay a lump-sum amount as permanent alimony — a proposal not accepted by the wife.
The High Court held that the maintenance already awarded was reasonable given the respondent’s financial condition, household responsibilities and documented income levels.
Court acknowledges history of complaints and strained relations
Both parties referenced past complaints and interventions. The husband stated that the strain caused by dietary disagreements and household issues led him to approach the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. He also filed a complaint with the Mahila Police Station alleging “torture and harassment” from the wife.
Meanwhile, the wife maintained that her religious dietary practices were unfairly treated as rigidity.
Outstanding dues to be paid
In its final direction, the Gujarat High Court instructed the husband to deposit any outstanding maintenance owed to the wife, bringing closure to a case that had spanned more than a decade.
The judgement reflects the judiciary’s consistent approach of examining financial capacity, documented income and individual responsibilities when determining alimony — while also acknowledging the emotional and cultural complexities that shape marital disputes.