The Supreme Court of India has enhanced the permanent alimony awarded to a wife from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 30,000 per month, observing that a wife is entitled to live a life consistent with the standard of living she was accustomed to during the subsistence of the marriage. The Court emphasized that the obligation of a husband to ensure his wife lives with dignity does not cease merely because she is educated or has parental support.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice R. Mahadevan, in the case of Appellant v. Respondent, set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the quantum of maintenance, holding the previous amount to be “grossly inadequate” given the husband’s financial capacity and the rising cost of living.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute between the Appellant-Wife and the Respondent-Husband. The couple was married on November 13, 1994, and a son was born in 1997. Due to disputes, they began living separately in 2011.
The respondent-husband, a doctor by profession, filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, granted the decree of divorce on November 30, 2015. While granting the divorce, the Family Court awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 15,000 per month and a lump sum of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant-wife.
Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance, the wife approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur. By a judgment dated August 29, 2018, the High Court dismissed her appeal (First Appeal No. 156 of 2016), affirming the Family Court’s decision. The wife subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging the quantum of alimony.
Contentions of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the appellant-wife argued that the respondent is a doctor earning approximately Rs. 1,60,000 per month. It was submitted that he also engaged in private practice and received rental income, factors which were allegedly overlooked by the High Court. The counsel contended that the respondent had remarried and was leading an affluent lifestyle, making the award of Rs. 15,000 per month insufficient.
Conversely, the counsel for the respondent-husband argued that the appellant is a highly qualified woman capable of maintaining herself. He submitted that he was bearing the educational expenses of their son and had been regular in paying the awarded maintenance. The respondent also claimed that his second marriage had broken down and that his financial position did not allow him to pay more than the existing amount.
In rebuttal, the appellant denied that the respondent was supporting the son’s education and pointed out that during earlier mediation proceedings, the husband had agreed to pay Rs. 30,000 per month but later resiled from that position.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court observed that marriage is founded on emotional bonding 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.”
Referring to the precedent in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and others (2015), the Court reiterated that the concept of sustenance does not mean mere survival but living with dignity. The judgment quoted:
“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 Bench also relied on the guidelines framed in Rajnesh v. Neha and another (2021), noting that factors such as the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife, and the financial capacity of the husband must be weighed. The Court cited the principle 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.”
Regarding the specific facts of the case, the Court found that the material on record indicated the respondent-husband had sufficient earning capacity. Considering the “present cost of living, the impact of inflation over the past decade, and the overall circumstances of the parties,” the Court concluded that the amount awarded by the lower courts was inadequate.
Decision
During the proceedings, after the Court directed the parties to seek instructions regarding an enhancement to Rs. 30,000 per month, the counsel for both sides agreed to the figure.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal with the following directions:
- The permanent alimony is enhanced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 30,000 per month.
- The enhanced amount is payable from the date of filing the Special Leave Petition, i.e., July 2, 2021.
- The respondent must pay the monthly alimony by the 5th of every succeeding month, starting February 5, 2026.
- The arrears amounting to Rs. 8,10,000 (calculated for 54 months from July 2021 to January 2026) must be paid either in a lump sum or in instalments over a period of four years.
