On July 15, the Supreme Court mandated a husband to pay Rs. 2 crores to his wife as permanent alimony, emphasising that maintenance or alimony should not be punitive but aimed at ensuring a decent standard of living for the wife. This decision was reached by Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra, who referenced several precedents, including the 2012 Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal case.
The court highlighted various factors in determining permanent alimony, such as the social and financial status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, and the employment status and qualifications of both parties. Other considerations included the independent income or assets of the parties, the lifestyle maintained during the marriage, any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities, reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife, and the financial capacity and obligations of the husband.
The Court stressed that the social standing, lifestyle, and financial background of the parties are significant factors. It evaluated the wife’s educational and professional qualifications, her employment history, and any independent income or property she might have. Additionally, it considered whether she had sacrificed employment opportunities for family responsibilities.
The Court also cited the 2020 Rajnesh v. Neha and Another case, which laid out factors for calculating maintenance. These include examining the husband’s actual income, his reasonable expenses, and any dependents he is legally obligated to support, alongside his liabilities and financial commitments.
In the current case, the Court noted that both parties are educated and employed with high standards of living. The husband’s monthly income was over Rs. 8 lakhs, while the wife earned Rs. 1,39,000 monthly. The husband was responsible for his parents’ medical expenses, while the wife supported her parents and minor daughter. The Court acknowledged that despite the husband’s financial obligations, he had the capacity to maintain his former wife, who earned significantly less.
The wife had initially demanded Rs. 5 to 7 crores as a one-time settlement, while the husband offered Rs. 50 lakhs. The Court determined Rs. 2 crores to be a fair and balanced amount, covering all pending and future claims.
The appeal originated from the wife’s challenge to a Delhi High Court judgement that denied her request to attach her husband’s bank account for interim maintenance payment. The couple, married for a year, had been living separately for nine years amid ongoing legal proceedings.
In chambers, the Court noted the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, referencing several judgments, including the 2022 Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri case. The Court concluded that prolonging the marriage served no purpose due to the long-standing differences and multiple failed reconciliation attempts.
Citing the 2023 Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan case, the Court reviewed the cohabitation period, the severity of allegations, previous legal proceedings, and the futility of reconciliation efforts. Concluding that the marriage had perished, the Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution to dissolve the marriage. The husband was given four months to pay the alimony, and all pending proceedings between the parties were ordered to be disposed of.
