Ex-Husband Can't Be Expected To Maintain Ex-Wife As Per His Present Status All Life; Alimony Not To Equalise Wealth : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a divorced wife cannot seek permanent alimony just to attain equal wealth status with the ex-husband. The Court expressed reservtions with tendency in matrimonial proceedings to seek maintenance or alimony as an "equilisation of wealth with the other party."While the wife is entitled to be maintained, as far as possible, to the same standards of life to which she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home, the husband can't be expected to maintain her as per his present status in life. Merely becasue the husband has moved on and attained better financial status after separation, the divorced wife cannot seek a higher alimony. "We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?" the Court asked.A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal shared their concerns as follows :"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. 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. But 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 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. But 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 was deciding the question of permanent alimony after dissolving a marriage which was found to have been irretrievably broken down.The petitioner (wife) claimed that the respondent(husband) had assets worth Rs 5000 crores in the US and that he had given Rs 500 crores alimony to his first wife.The Court expressed surprise that the petitioner was seeking equalisation of status not just with the respondent but with his ex-wife as well. Ultimately, the Court settled the permanent alimony at a figure of Rs.12 crores."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," the judgment stated.The Court expressed in the judgment that the dispute with respect to the amount of alimony is generally the most contentious point between parties in such marital proceedings, supplemented by a plethora of accusations to remove the cover from the opposite party's income and assets. Reference was made to the principles laid down in the judgments Kiran Jyot Maini vs. Anish Pramod Patel(2024), Rajnesh vs. Neha(2020)Appearances: For Petitioner(s) - Mr. N.K. Modi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anindita Mitra, AORFor Respondent(s) - Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satish L. Maneshinde, Adv. Mr. Priyank Upadhyay, AOR Mrs. Shivali Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anupam Shukla, Adv. Mr. Anadi Kumar Taylor, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Maneshinde, Adv.Also from the judgment- Women Need To Realise That Beneficial Laws Aren't Means To Threaten, Domineer Or Extort From Their Husbands : Supreme CourtCase : Rinku Baheti Vs Sandesh ShardaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1021Click here to read the judgmentRelated- Permanent Alimony Shouldn't Penalize Husband But Should Ensure Decent Living For Wife : Supreme Court Lists Out Factors

Ex-Husband Can't Be Expected To Maintain Ex-Wife As Per His Present Status All Life; Alimony Not To Equalise Wealth : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags