'Permanent Alimony Is Awarded To Ensure Decent Living Standard For Wife' : Supreme Court Lists Out Factors To Be Considered

The Court, in the present case, ordered the husband to pay Rs. 2 Crores to his wife as permanent alimony.

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra relied upon a thread of precedents to reach the one-time settlement amount. The decisions included Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal., (2012) 7 SCC 288. It was observed that permanent alimony is to be granted after considering largely the social status, conduct of the parties, the parties' lifestyle, and other such ancillary factors.

These factors include but are not limited to:

i. Status of the parties, social and financial.

ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children.

iii. Qualifications and employment status of the parties.

iv. Independent income or assets owned by the parties.

v. Maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial home.

vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities.

vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.

viii.Financial capacity of husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.

Status of parties significant factor

"The status of the parties is a significant factor, encompassing their social standing, lifestyle, and financial background. The reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children must be assessed, including costs for food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical expenses. The applicant's educational and professional qualifications, as well as their employment history, play a crucial role in evaluating their potential for self-sufficiency. If the applicant has any independent source of income or owns property, this will also be taken into account to determine if it is sufficient to maintain the same standard of living experienced during the marriage. Additionally, the court considers whether the applicant had to sacrifice employment opportunities for family responsibilities, such as child-rearing or caring for elderly family members, which may have impacted their career prospects," the Court stated.

Besides this, in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another., (2020), the Court had laid down several factors for calculating the maintenance amount. These factors included independent income or assets owned by the parties, maintaining the standard of living as in the matrimonial home, and so on and so forth.

“The Court shall examine the husband's actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and any dependents he is legally obligated to support. His liabilities and financial commitments are also to be considered to ensure a balanced and fair maintenance award.,” the Court opined in the instant case.

Building on these observations, the Court weighed the relevant factors. It noted that both parties are educated and employed, have high standards of living, and have dependants to be taken care of. It observed that while the husband's monthly income was over Rs. 8 Lakhs, the wife's monthly income was Rs.1,39,000.

Apart from this, the Court brought its attention to the responsibilities of both parties against their dependents. The husband was responsible for the medical expenses and stay of his parents. On the other hand, his wife was responsible for her parents as well as for her minor daughter.

“It is evident from their submissions that though both of them are well qualified and gainfully employed, the respondent-husband earns approximately five times the monthly income of the appellant-wife. Respondent-husband has certain obligations towards three dependants, his own expenses, and certain bank loans, but he also evidently has the financial capacity to maintain his former wife.,” the Court said.

It may also be noted that the wife had demanded Rs. 5 to 7 Crores as a one-time settlement. However, the husband was willing to pay only Rs. 50 Lakhs.

Considering the above facts, circumstances, and relevant factors, the Court reached a fair and balanced amount of Rs 2 Crores. The Court added that this amount would also cover all pending and future claims.

Brief Background

The Division Bench was hearing an appeal, preferred by the wife, against the Delhi High Court judgment. The challenged judgment rejected her prayer to seek attachment to her husband's bank account and complete payment of interim maintenance to her.

The factual background is marred by several legal proceedings initiated by both parties. It may be noted that within one year of marriage, the appellant-wife registered a complaint, inter alia, of cruelty and demand for dowry.

When the case reached the Top Court, it was heard in chambers (in private and not in open Court). The Court noted at the outset that the parties had been living separately for the last nine years. Apart from this, even though they were referred to mediation by different Courts, at several stages, there was no reconciliation.

Taking note of the same, the Court concluded that their marriage had irretrievably broken down. To exercise its discretion for dissolving the marriage, the Court relied upon the catena of judgments. This included the recent case of Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri., (2022) 15 SCC 754. Therein, the Court had observed that upon considering the cumulative effect of all necessary factors and that the marriage has perished due to long-standing differences between the parties, and thus no useful purpose would be achieved by prolonging the suffering of the parties, the Court can pass an order for dissolution of marriage.

In another case, Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375, the Court discussed the factors that examined this irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The factors encompassed a period of cohabitation after marriage, the nature and gravity of allegations made by the parties, orders passed in previous or pending legal proceedings, attempts at reconciliation or settlement and their outcomes, period of separation and other similar considerations.

Taking a cue from this, the Court brought its attention to the factual matrix of the case. It noted that the parties cohabited after marriage for less than a year and the allegations made by the wife are grave and serious.

“Multiple attempts at reconciliation between the appellant and respondent have been made by the Courts at different stages but all efforts have been futile. Multiple legal proceedings are pending between the parties and do not appear to possibly conclude in the near future.,” the Court added.

Based on this, the Court, while exercising its discretionary power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, dissolved the marriage. The timeline given to the Husband for payment of this amount was of four months. The Court also made it clear that all the pending proceedings between the parties shall be disposed of.

Case Details: Kiran Jyot Maini vs Anish Pramod Patel., SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Click here to read the judgment