Man can’t be expected to maintain his ex-wife as per his present status all life: SC

Holding that a man can't be expected to maintain his ex-wife as per his present status all life, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a woman’s plea seeking Rs 500 crore as alimony from her husband on divorce.

The petitioner had claimed that her husband had assets worth Rs 5,000 crore in the US and that he had given Rs 500 crore alimony to his first wife. She sought parity with his first wife.

However, a Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal awarded her Just Rs 12 crore as permanent alimony to be paid within a month in addition to Rs 3 lakh towards cost of litigation on the condition that she would vacate the two flats of her former husband at Pune and Bhopal within two months from the date of receipt of the amount of permanent alimony. It ordered her to file an undertaking to this effect in two weeks.

“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,” the Bench said.

Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Nagarathna said, “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. 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?”

Using its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, the top court dissolved their marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and quashed all criminal cases between the parties.

Rejecting her claim for parity with his first wife in payment of alimony, the top court said, “The petitioner cannot simply claim an amount equal to what the ex-wife of the respondent had received or on the basis of the income of the respondent (husband).”

The Bench said, “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.”