Delhi High Court rules that permanent alimony cannot be awarded to financially independent spouses. The judgment emphasizes that alimony is intended to address genuine financial need, not as a means to equalize wealth or enrich a capable partner.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has clarified the scope of permanent alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing that it is a measure of social justice and not a tool for enriching a financially independent spouse.
The Case
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar recently upheld a family court order denying permanent alimony to a woman while granting her husband a divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
The couple in question had married in January 2010, after both having experienced previous divorces. Their marriage lasted only 14 months. The husband, a practising advocate, alleged mental and physical cruelty by the wife, including abusive language, insulting messages, denial of conjugal rights, and public humiliation. The wife, a Group A Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS) officer, denied the allegations and counter-accused her husband of cruelty.
During the proceedings, the family court noted that the wife had demanded ₹50 lakh as a financial settlement in exchange for consenting to the dissolution of the marriage, a request that the court rejected.
High Court Observations
The Delhi High Court stressed that alimony is meant to support a spouse genuinely in need, not to equalize financial status between two self-sufficient individuals. Key observations from the judgment include:
- Financial Independence Matters: Judicial discretion under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be exercised to award alimony where the spouse is financially self-sufficient.
- Intent Behind Resistance to Divorce: The court noted that when a spouse conditions consent to divorce on receiving a substantial sum, it reflects pecuniary motivation rather than a desire for reconciliation or preservation of marriage.
- Evidence of Cruelty: The wife’s use of degrading language and insults directed at the husband and his family was recognized as mental cruelty, justifying the grant of divorce to the husband.
- Short Cohabitation & Absence of Children: The brevity of the marriage and absence of dependent children further negated any claim for permanent alimony.
Ultimately, the Bench concluded that the wife’s substantial government income and independent financial status meant that there was no justifiable ground for awarding permanent alimony.
ALSO READ: I Am Reminded of the Film The Lunchbox, Where Ila Dreams of Moving to Bhutan: CJI Gavai
Appearance:
For the wife: Advocates Sarim Naved and Zeeshan Ahmad
For the husband: Senior Advocate Rakesh Tiku and Advocate Arpan Wadhawan
Case Title:
RR v PRC
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 2/2024 & CM APPL. 360/2024
READ JUDGMENT