CMA/77/2018 of MADHUKAR DUGGIRALA Vs SHOBHA DUGGIRALA on 13 October 2026

C.M.A.Nos.77, 2335 & 2336 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-10-2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI AND THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE C.M.A.Nos.77, 2335 & 2336 of 2018 {CNR:HCMA010779192018} and C.M.P.Nos.1170 & 17875 of 2018 C.M.A.No.77 of 2018

: Madhukar Duggirala, S/o. Rajabapa Rao, No.9, 6th Cross Lake Area, Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034 ..Appellant Vs Shobha Duggirala, D/o. Panendra Roa No. 5 Venugopal Avenue,Spur Tank Road Chetpet Chennai 600 031 ..Respondent C.M.A.No.2336 of 2018: CNR:{HCMA013164702017} Shobha Duggirala. D/o.Panendra Rao, No.5, Venugopal Avenue, Spur Tank Road, Chetpet, Chennai. ..Appellant Vs Madhukar Duggirala, S/o. Rajabapa Rao, No.9, 6th Cross, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Chennai. ..Respondent

C.M.A.Nos.77, 2335 & 2336 of 2018

C.M.A.No.2335 of 2018: CNR:{HCMA013164712017} Shobha Duggirala, D/o.Panendra Rao, No.5, Venugopal Avenue, Spur Tank Road, Chetpet, Chennai. ..Appellant Vs Madhukar Duggirala, S/o. Rajabapa Rao, No.9, 6th Cross, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Chennai. ..Respondent PRAYER in

C.M.A.No.77 of 2018

: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to set aside the common order and decree dated 04.04.2017 passed by the 1st Additional Family Court Chennai in I.A.No.448 of 2012 in O.P.No.3637 of 2007.

PRAYER in

C.M.A.No.

: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.04.2017 passed in O.P.No.3637 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Family Court at Chennai and enhancing the amount granted towards permanent alimony to the petitioner and also obviating the findings rendered by the Court below in granting divorce to the petitioner.

PRAYER in

C.M.A.No.

: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.04.2017 passed in I.A.No.448 of 2012 in O.P.No.3637 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Family Court at Chennai and enhancing the amount granted towards permanent alimony to the petitioner and also obviating the findings rendered by the Court below in granting divorce to the petitioner.

C.M.A.Nos.77, 2335 & 2336 of 2018

C.M.A.No.77 of 2018:

For Appellant: No Appearance For Respondent: M/s.G.Rm.Palaniappan C.M.A.Nos.2335 & 2336 of 2018: For Appellant: M/s.G.Rm.Palaniappan For Respondent: Ms.C.S.Rajalakshmi, Legal aid Counsel *** C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.)

The appellant in C.M.A.No.77 of 2018 and the appellant in C.M.A.No.2335 of 2018 are the husband and wife, respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the husband and the wife.

2. The husband filed H.M.O.P.No.3637 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Family Court, Chennai, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Pending the said proceedings, the wife filed I.A.No.448 of 2012 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,00,000/-. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband and awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the wife. Aggrieved by the quantum of permanent alimony awarded, the husband filed

C.M.A.Nos.77, 2335 & 2336 of 2018

C.M.A.No.77 of 2018 challenging the award, while the wife filed C.M.A.No.2335 of 2018 seeking enhancement of the amount. Since both appeals arise out of the order passed in I.A.No.448 of 2012 in H.M.O.P.No.3637 of 2007, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the wife would submit that the wife got married to her husband on 17.04.1987 at A.V.M.Rajeswari Kalayana Mandapam, Chennai as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock, two children, namely, Sooraj and Sonal, were born to them. It is submitted that both the children have since attained majority and settled in the United States of America. The parties have admittedly been living separately since 20.08.2005, and allegations of cruelty were exchanged between them in the matrimonial proceedings.

4. Learned counsel would further submit that the husband, an engineer by profession, was employed in the United States of America, where the parties had lived together for nearly 20 years. It is contended that the husband has substantial savings and investments generating considerable income and also owns a property situated at Nungambakkam, Chennai, valued at more than Rs.9 crores. The wife had relinquished her rights in the said property in consideration

C.M.A.Nos.77, 2335 & 2336 of 2018

of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, as evidenced by Ex.P20. According to the learned counsel, the property was acquired from the earnings of the parties during their matrimonial life and the amount received by the wife towards relinquishment of her rights was grossly inadequate in comparison with the value of the property.

5. It is further contended that the receipt of Rs.50,00,000/- towards relinquishment of her rights in the property would not, by itself, disentitle the wife from claiming permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The entitlement of the wife has to be determined by taking into consideration the status of the parties, their respective financial circumstances, the assets and income of the husband and his capacity to pay permanent alimony. It is submitted that the Family Court rightly recognised the wife's entitlement to permanent alimony, having regard to the financial circumstances of the parties, but the sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- awarded is inadequate. Therefore, the wife seeks enhancement of the permanent alimony to Rs.5,00,00,000/-.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the husband would submit that the wife is financially independent and capable of maintaining herself. It is contended that she was employed in several companies in the United States of America during the period when the parties were residing together and has sufficient means to maintain herself. It is further submitted that the wife had

C.M.A.Nos.77, 2335 & 2336 of 2018

already received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- upon relinquishing her rights in the Nungambakkam property and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim permanent alimony from the husband. Accordingly, learned counsel seeks interference with the order awarding Rs.3,00,00,000/- towards permanent alimony.

7. This Court has considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. The point for consideration is whether the permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,00,000/- awarded by the Family Court under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, warrants interference either by way of reduction, as sought by the husband, or enhancement, as sought by the wife.

9. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, empowers the Court to grant permanent alimony and maintenance, having regard to the income and other property of the parties, their conduct and the other circumstances of the case. The determination of permanent alimony is not governed solely by whether the spouse claiming alimony is employed or possesses independent income. The financial position of both parties, their standard of living during the matrimonial relationship, their respective assets and liabilities and the capacity

C.M.A.Nos.77, 2335 & 2336 of 2018

of the spouse against whom the claim is made are relevant considerations in determining the quantum of permanent alimony.

10. In the present case, the parties had lived together for nearly 20 years and have two children born out of the wedlock. They have been living separately since 20.08.2005. The materials placed before the Court disclose that the husband owned a property at Nungambakkam, Chennai, valued at more than Rs.9 crores, in which the wife relinquished her rights in consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-, as evidenced by Ex.P20. The said transaction is a relevant circumstance to be considered while determining the wife's claim for permanent alimony.

11. The fact that the wife is employed and has independent means cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny her claim for permanent alimony. Equally, the mere existence of substantial assets in the hands of the husband would not automatically entitle the wife to the entire amount claimed by her. The quantum has to be determined on an overall assessment of the relevant circumstances, including the income, assets and liabilities of the parties, their standard of living and the financial capacity of the husband.

12. In the present case, the Family Court, upon considering the evidence placed before it, awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- towards permanent alimony

C.M.A.Nos.77, 2335 & 2336 of 2018

to the wife. The wife seeks enhancement of the said amount to Rs.5,00,00,000/-, whereas the husband seeks reduction of the amount awarded, contending that the wife is financially independent and has already received Rs.50,00,000/- towards relinquishment of her rights in the property. However, on an overall consideration of the circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, this Court finds no sufficient ground to either enhance or reduce the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the Family Court.

13. In view of the above, both C.M.A.No.77 of 2018 and C.M.A.No.2335 of 2018 are dismissed. The order passed by the I Additional Family Court, Chennai, awarding permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,00,000/- to the wife in I.A. No.448 of 2012 in H.M.O.P. No.3637 of 2007 is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. With regard to C.M.A.No.2336 of 2018, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant /wife submitted that the appellant has no objection to the decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent. In this regard, an affidavit has been filed before this Court, seeking expunction of the adverse remarks made by the Family Court. In view of the affidavit filed by the appellant, C.M.A. No.2336 of 2018 stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, shall stand closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 13-10-2026 sts

C.M.A.Nos.77, 2335 & 2336 of 2018

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To:

1. 1st Additional Family Court, Chennai

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104

C.M.A.Nos.77, 2335 & 2336 of 2018

M.DHANDAPANI J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE J. sts Common Judgment made in C.M.A.Nos.77, 2335 & 2336 of 2018 Dated: 13-10-2026