Yesterday, On 19th December, The Supreme Court emphasized the need for strict laws to protect women and said marriage should not be seen as a business deal. The bench pointed out that laws related to rape, criminal intimidation, and cruelty against married women are sometimes misused together, which has been criticized in earlier judgments. It called for steps to stop such misuse while ensuring fair treatment for real victims.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court stated that strict laws are meant to protect women, not to “chastise, threaten, domineer or extort” their husbands.
Justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal emphasized that a “Hindu marriage is a sacred institution, serving as the foundation for a family, rather than a commercial venture.”
The court criticized how Indian Penal Code sections, such as those addressing rape and cruelty, are often used together in complaints about marriage disputes.
They noted that this misuse has been condemned by the court multiple times.
The Bench remarked,
“The women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands,”
This statement came during a case where the court ended the marriage of a couple due to its irretrievable breakdown. The court also highlighted that while these laws are intended to protect and empower women, some may misuse them for personal gain, particularly in monetary disputes.
The justices noted that police often act quickly in certain cases, leading to the arrest of husbands or their relatives, sometimes causing significant distress to families. They pointed out that minor disagreements can escalate into significant conflicts, damaging the relationship beyond repair.
In a specific case, the court addressed a wife’s request to move her divorce case from Bhopal to Pune, while the husband sought to dissolve the marriage. The court recognized that both parties and their families were involved in multiple legal disputes during their short marriage.
The court noted that the marriage between the couple never really began, as they did not live together continuously.
Regarding alimony, the wife claimed that her estranged husband had a net worth of Rs. 5,000 crore, with many businesses and properties in both the US and India. She mentioned that he had paid his first wife at least Rs. 500 crore upon their separation, not counting a house in Virginia.
The court explained,
“Thus, she claims permanent alimony commensurate to the status of the respondent-husband and on the same principles as was paid to the first wife of the respondent,”
The judges expressed concern about how often people seek alimony or maintenance as a way to match the wealth of their spouse. They observed that requests for maintenance usually focus on the assets and income of the richer spouse, leading to demands for equal amounts.
The bench stated,
“However, there is an inconsistency in this practice, because the demands of equalisation are made only in cases where the spouse is a person of means or is doing well for himself,”
They questioned whether the wife would still seek equal wealth if her husband became poor after their separation.
The court emphasized that alimony should be based on various factors and that there isn’t a fixed formula for determining it.
In their mutual divorce application, the husband agreed to pay Rs. 8 crore to settle all claims. The family court in Pune determined that the wife was entitled to Rs. 10 crore in permanent alimony, a decision the Supreme Court accepted.
The court also ordered the husband to pay an additional Rs. 2 crore so the wife could buy another flat. Additionally, the court dismissed the criminal cases the wife had filed against her husband.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
