Permanent Alimony — Supreme Court's 5% Biennial Escalation Rule

A 2026 Supreme Court bench enhanced permanent alimony from ₹20,000 per month to ₹50,000 per month and added a clause the court has not consistently used before: a built-in escalation of 5% every two years. The figure adjusts automatically. No fresh application is needed each time inflation erodes the real value of the amount.

The principle the court applied — that a fixed lump sum or a frozen monthly figure fails to account for the cost-of-living trajectory over a long maintenance horizon — is not new. Courts have said versions of it for years. What changed in 2026 is that the escalation mechanism was written into the order itself, creating a template that lower courts can follow without having to rediscover the logic in each matter.

The Section 25 HMA framework

Permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is ordered at or after the decree of divorce (or nullity, or judicial separation). It is distinct from interim maintenance under Section 24, which runs during the proceedings. The court considers: the income and property of both parties, their conduct during the marriage, and any other circumstances it considers just.

Courts have long used the Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) Supreme Court framework as a structuring tool — that judgment established disclosure affidavits, income verification through ITRs and bank statements, and a list of factors courts should record findings on before fixing the quantum. The 2026 development adds the inflation-proofing dimension to that established framework.

Why inflation-linked escalation matters

A ₹30,000 per month order passed in 2018 has lost roughly 30–35% of its purchasing power by 2026 at average Indian CPI inflation. The recipient can seek a modification under Section 25(2) on a change of circumstances — but each modification application is fresh litigation. An automatic escalation clause eliminates that cycle and reduces post-decree conflict.

From a respondent's perspective, the escalation is predictable and plannable. A lump-sum settlement avoids it entirely — the financial relationship ends at the decree. Where a monthly order is inevitable, a capped escalation mechanism is more manageable than open-ended modification applications.

How Family Court Mayo Hall is likely to apply this

The Bangalore Family Court at Mayo Hall follows Supreme Court precedent. In contested permanent alimony matters, the 2026 escalation approach is likely to be raised by counsel on both sides. Petitioners seeking alimony will cite it to press for an escalation clause. Respondents will argue the base quantum should be lower to account for the built-in escalation.

Practically, the court retains discretion on whether to include an escalation clause and at what rate. The 5% biennial figure from the 2026 judgment is persuasive, not binding as a fixed formula. Courts may vary it based on the facts — the respondent's profession, earning trajectory, and the standard of living during the marriage all influence what is just in a specific matter.

What petitioners and respondents should now plead

Petitioners should address the escalation question proactively in their Section 25 application — not just the base quantum. An affidavit that addresses projected inflation and the maintenance horizon puts the court in a position to grant a structured order rather than revisit the matter later.

Respondents should address the total long-term liability of an escalating monthly order versus a clean lump-sum settlement. In matters where lump-sum is feasible, that calculation — presented to the court — is often more persuasive than resisting escalation on principle.