In a significant intervention on post-divorce financial rights, the Supreme Court stepped in to examine whether a woman can be expected to sustain herself on a decade-old maintenance figure despite rising living costs and her former spouse’s substantial earning capacity. The Court scrutinised the adequacy of permanent alimony fixed by courts below, flagging the larger principle of dignity, standard of living, and the real meaning of “maintenance” after marital breakdown.
The controversy began when a wife challenged a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling that upheld a Family Court order granting her Rs.15,000 per month as permanent alimony following divorce. Married in 1994 and separated since 2011, the couple had a son, and the husband, by profession a doctor, had secured a decree of divorce while being directed to pay monthly maintenance along with a small lump sum.
The wife approached the Apex Court arguing that the amount was grossly inadequate given the husband’s income, private practice, and overall lifestyle, especially in light of inflation. The husband resisted enhancement, contending that the wife was educated, capable of earning, and that his own financial obligations limited his ability to pay more.
The Bench took a clear stand on the purpose of maintenance, rejecting the idea that education or potential earning capacity alone could justify limiting support. Emphasising that marriage creates enduring obligations even after divorce, the Court observed that “sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.”
Relying on settled precedent, the Court held that a divorced wife is entitled to live with dignity and in reasonable parity with the lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage. Assessing the husband’s earning capacity, inflation over the years, and the inadequacy of the existing figure, the Court found the earlier amount insufficient.
With both parties ultimately agreeing, the Court enhanced the permanent alimony to Rs.30,000 per month, payable retrospectively from July 2021, directed payment of arrears, and modified the earlier judgments accordingly, allowing the appeal.
Case Title: Anamika Jain Vs. Dr. Atul Jain and Anr.
Case No.: SLP (C) NO. 5220 OF 2024)
Coram: Hon'ble. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Hon'ble. Justice R. Mahadevan
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR. Alok Tripathi,
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Ruchika Gohil, Adv. Anurag Gohil, AOR. Sarad Kumar Singhania,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
