Supreme Court doubled permanent alimony from Rs 15,000 to Rs 30,000, affirming a wife’s right to maintain her marital living standard. The Bench ruled that education or parental support does not absolve a husband from ensuring dignified maintenance.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has increased the permanent alimony for a wife from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 30,000 per month, highlighting that a wife deserves to maintain a standard of living similar to what she had during her marriage. The Court stressed that a husband’s duty to ensure his wife’s dignified living does not end simply because she is educated or has parental support.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice R. Mahadevan addressed the case of Appellant v. Respondent, set aside the lower courts’ decisions regarding maintenance. The previous amount was deemed “grossly inadequate” considering the husband’s financial capacity and the escalating living costs.
Background of the Case
This appeal emerged from a matrimonial dispute between the Appellant-Wife and the Respondent-Husband, who married on November 13, 1994, and had a son in 1997. They began living separately in 2011 due to disputes. The respondent, a practicing doctor, sought a divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Family Court in Bhopal granted the divorce decree on November 30, 2015, while awarding the wife a permanent alimony of Rs. 15,000 per month and a one-time payment of Rs. 50,000. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the wife appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which dismissed her appeal on August 29, 2018, upholding the Family Court’s decision. The wife then approached the Supreme Court to challenge the alimony amount.
Contentions of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant-wife’s counsel argued that the respondent was earning around Rs. 1,60,000 monthly as a doctor, also engaged in private practice, and received rental income, which the High Court had overlooked. The argument emphasized that the respondent had remarried and was living a luxurious life, making the Rs. 15,000 insufficient.
The respondent’s counsel countered that the appellant is a well-educated woman capable of self-maintenance and that he was covering their son’s educational expenses while being consistent in paying the awarded maintenance. The respondent also claimed that his second marriage had failed, affecting his financial capability to pay more.
In rebuttal, the appellant challenged the claim regarding her son’s education expenses and pointed out that during prior mediation, the respondent had agreed to pay Rs. 30,000 monthly but later retracted.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court remarked that marriage is built on emotional connection and mutual support.
The Bench stated,
“When such a marriage breaks down, the obligation of the husband to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity does not come to an end merely on the ground that she is educated or has parental support. Post-divorce, the wife is entitled to live a life consistent with the standard of living she was accustomed to during the subsistence of the marriage.”
Referencing Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and others (2015), the Court clarified that sustenance involves living with dignity, not just survival.
It said,
“The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.”
The Court relied on guidelines from Rajnesh v. Neha and another (2021), noting that factors such as the parties’ status, the wife’s reasonable needs, and the husband’s financial capacity should be considered.
The principle cited was that,
“The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.”
Assessing the case details, the Court found that the respondent-husband had adequate earning potential. Taking into account the “present cost of living, the impact of inflation over the past decade, and the overall circumstances of the parties,” the Court ruled that the sums awarded by lower courts were insufficient.
During the proceedings, the Court suggested an increase to Rs. 30,000 per month, which both parties accepted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered the following:
- the permanent alimony is increased to Rs. 30,000 monthly, effective from the date of filing the Special Leave Petition, July 2, 2021.
- The respondent is required to pay this alimony by the 5th of each month, starting February 5, 2026.
- Additionally, the respondent must pay the arrears totaling Rs. 8,10,000 (calculated for 54 months from July 2021 to January 2026), either as a lump sum or in installments over four years.
CASE TITLE: ANAMIKA JAIN Vs DR. ATUL JAIN
Read Attachment: