The Supreme Court has clarified that a divorced wife cannot claim permanent alimony solely to achieve an equal wealth status with her ex-husband. The Court expressed concerns over the growing trend in matrimonial disputes to view maintenance or alimony as a means of “equalizing wealth between the parties.”
While a wife is entitled to maintenance that ensures, as far as possible, the same standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home, the husband cannot be expected to support her based on his current financial status. The Court emphasized that just because the husband has advanced financially after the separation, the divorced wife cannot demand an increased 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 consisting of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh expressed their concerns in the following terms:
“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 deliberating on the issue of permanent alimony after dissolving a marriage deemed irretrievably broken.
The petitioner (wife) alleged that the respondent (husband) possessed assets worth ₹5000 crores in the US and had paid ₹500 crores as alimony to his first wife.
Expressing astonishment, the Court noted that the petitioner sought not only to equalize her status with the respondent but also with his ex-wife. Ultimately, the Court determined the permanent alimony to be ₹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 observed in its judgment that disputes over the amount of alimony often become the most contentious issue in marital proceedings, accompanied by numerous allegations aimed at uncovering the other party’s income and assets. The judgment referenced the principles established in Kiran Jyot Maini vs. Anish Pramod Patel (2024) and Rajnesh vs. Neha (2020).