Amid the rising debate over astronomical alimony demands in divorce cases and misuse of domestic violence laws, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that a divorced wife can’t demand permanent alimony just to maintain equal wealth status with the ex-husband. The apex court expressed dissatisfaction with the rising tendency to demand alimony as an “equalisation of wealth with the other party” in matrimonial cases.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh stated that while the wife is entitled to maintenance to the same standard of life she was accustomed to with her husband as far as possible, this can’t be permanent. The court said that the ex-husband can’t be expected to provide maintenance as per his current status forever.
The bench noted that if the husband’s financial situation improves after the divorce, the ex-wife can’t seek an increase in alimony to match her ex-husband’s lifestyle. The court also wondered if the man’s income goes down for some reason, whether his ex-wife will accept a cut on her alimony.
The court issued the verdict while deciding on the issue of permanent alimony after divorce. In this case, the woman claimed that her ex-husband currently has assets worth ₹5000 crore in the USA, and he had given ₹500 crore as alimony to his first wife after divorce, which was half of his wealth at that time, along with a house in the USA. The petitioner woman, the man’s second wife, demanded that her alimony should match her ex-husband’s current wealth as well as his first wife’s alimony.
Essentially, the woman demanded ₹500 crore and a house in the USA as alimony, just like the man’s wife was given. However, the man refused the demand saying that his second marriage lasted only few months and therefore the alimony couldn’t be equal to his first wife. Notably, the woman stayed with the man, who is a US citizen, for just 3-4 months before separating.
Livelaw quoted the bench as saying, “We have serious reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth wit the other party. It is often seen that parties in their application for maintenance or alimony highlight the assets, status and income of their spouse, and then ask for an amount that can equal their wealth to that of the spouse.”
The bench observed that women demand only a raise in alimony if the wealth of their ex-husband increases, but do not seek a reduction if ex-husbands become poorer after the divorce. The court said, “such demands are conspicuously absent in cases where the wealth of the spouse has decreased since the time of separation. There cannot be two different approaches to seeking and granting maintenance or alimony, depending on the status and income of the spouse.”
The court further stated, “The law of maintenance is aimed at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice and dignity of the individual. The husband is under a legal obligation to sufficiently provide for his wife. As per settled law, the wife is entitled to be maintained as far as possible in a manner that is similar to what she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home while the parties were together.”
Saying that the man is not liable to increase alimony if his wealth increases after the separation, the court said, “Once the parties have separated, it cannot be expected of the husband to maintain her as per his present status all his life. If the husband has moved ahead and is, fortunately, doing better in life post his separation, then to ask him to always maintain the status of the wife as per his own changing status would be putting a burden on his own personal progress.”
The court expressed surprise that apart from demanding alimony according to her ex-husband’s current wealth, the petitioner was also seeking equalisation with his first wife.
The court finally approved a permanent alimony amount of ₹12 crore. While the Family Court in Pune had awarded ₹10 crore in alimony, the Supreme Court added ₹2 crores to enable the woman to buy a house.
The court said that while deciding alimony, the husband’s income can’t be the only factor. The wife’s reasonable needs and other factors also have to be considered. The judgement said, “The Court has to not just consider the income of the respondent-husband here, but also bear in mind other factors such as the income of the petitioner-wife, her reasonable needs, her residential rights, and other similar factors. Thus, her entitlement to maintenance has to be decided based on the factors applicable to her and not depend on what the respondent had paid to his ex-wife or solely on his income.”
