Bench Comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Introduction
In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that a divorced wife, who remains unmarried, is entitled to maintenance reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during her marriage. The Court enhanced the permanent alimony awarded by the Calcutta High Court from ₹20,000 to ₹50,000 per month, subject to periodic increases, taking into account the financial status of the husband, inflation, and the wife's lack of independent income.
- Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Permanent alimony and maintenance.
- Relevant principles laid down in earlier judgments, including decisions emphasizing that maintenance must reflect the status and lifestyle of the spouse during the subsistence of marriage.
You can also read the Judgement of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950 SC 124)
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Facts of the Case
The parties were married in 1997. A son was born from the wedlock in 1998. They separated in 2008.
The Calcutta High Court granted a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The High Court awarded permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month, with a 5% increase every 3 years. Dissatisfied, the wife (appellant) approached the Supreme Court for enhancement of the maintenance amount.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the permanent alimony awarded by the High Court was just and adequate considering the financial condition of the husband and the lifestyle of the wife during the marriage.
- Whether the divorced wife is entitled to maintenance that reflects the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage.
- Whether the adult son is entitled to any maintenance.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The alimony awarded by the High Court was inadequate to maintain the standard of life she had during the marriage. The husband earns a net salary of ₹1.64 lakh per month from his employment at the Institute of Hotel Management, Kolkata. She has remained unmarried and is financially dependent on the maintenance. The award by the High Court did not consider inflation or her current cost of living.
Contentions of the Respondent
He has multiple financial obligations, including support for his second wife, dependent family members, and aged parents. Their son is now 26 years old and is financially independent, hence no maintenance should be awarded for him. He contested the claim that ₹20,000 per month was inadequate.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the financial disclosures of the husband and acknowledged his stable income and earning capacity. It emphasized the principle that a divorced wife who remains unmarried is entitled to maintenance that reflects the standard of living she enjoyed during marriage. Recognized that maintenance is not merely for bare survival, but must provide a reasonable standard of dignity and security. The Court noted inflationary trends, rising cost of living, and the wife’s complete financial dependence on the maintenance amount. The Court also clarified that the son, being a major, has no statutory entitlement to maintenance but may seek voluntary financial assistance from the father.
Conclusion
The permanent alimony was enhanced to ₹50,000 per month, Subject to a 5% increase every 2 years. The order ensured that the appellant could live a life dignified and consistent with the standard she enjoyed during her marriage. The son’s inheritance rights remain unaffected and can be claimed in accordance with applicable laws.
