Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice R. Mahadevan modified the maintenance order in a divorce-related dispute, holding that a husband’s obligation to ensure dignified sustenance for his former wife does not end after divorce merely because she is educated or has parental support. The Court noted that marriage involves companionship and mutual support that cannot be reduced to a purely financial calculation, and that a woman enters matrimony with legitimate expectations of a stable life. Allowing the divorced wife’s appeal on the quantum of alimony, the Court enhanced permanent alimony from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 30,000 per month with effect from July 2, 2021, directed monthly payment by the 5th, and ordered arrears to be cleared as specified.

The appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife whose marriage was solemnised in November 1994 according to Hindu rites and rituals. A male child was born from the wedlock in November 1997. Due to matrimonial discord, the parties began living separately in 2011. The husband instituted proceedings seeking dissolution of marriage, which culminated in a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court. Along with the decree of divorce, the Family Court awarded permanent alimony of ₹15,000 per month and a lump sum amount of ₹50,000 to the wife.

Also Read: Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Award Passed After Arbitrator’s Mandate Expiry Not Void If Court Extends Time; Section 29A Extension Plea Maintainable Even After Award: Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the quantum of permanent alimony, the wife preferred an appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement. The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the award of permanent alimony granted by the Family Court. The wife thereafter approached the Supreme Court, limiting her challenge solely to the adequacy of the permanent alimony.

Before the Supreme Court, the wife contended that the husband was a medical professional with substantial monthly income, including income from private practice and rental sources, and that these aspects had not been adequately considered earlier. The husband contested the claim for enhancement, asserting that the wife was qualified and capable of self-maintenance and that his financial obligations constrained further payment. The dispute before the Supreme Court was confined to the determination of whether the permanent alimony awarded required enhancement.

The Court observed that “the challenge before this Court is confined solely to the quantum of permanent alimony of Rs. 15,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court, as affirmed by the High Court”. It recorded that “the appellant–wife has not challenged the decree of divorce” and that the appeal was restricted to the issue of adequacy of permanent alimony.

The Court stated that “marriage, as an institution in our society, is founded on emotional bonding, companionship, and mutual support, which cannot be evaluated in purely monetary terms”. It further observed that “a woman often enters matrimony with legitimate aspirations of a stable and dignified life” and that “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”.

The Court recorded that “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”. It observed that “sustenance does not necessarily mean mere survival” and that maintenance must enable the wife to live with dignity.

Upon consideration of the material on record, including the pay certificate, the Court observed that “the respondent–husband has sufficient earning capacity and financial means to pay more than Rs. 15,000/- per month towards permanent alimony”. It further recorded that “considering the present cost of living, the impact of inflation over the past decade, and the overall circumstances of the parties, the amount awarded by the Family Court, as affirmed by the High Court, is inadequate and warrants enhancement”.

The Court noted that during the course of proceedings, instructions were sought from both sides regarding enhancement of alimony, and recorded that “upon receiving instructions, the learned counsel for both sides have fairly agreed to such enhancement”.

The Court directed that “the permanent alimony payable to the appellant–wife is enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- per month to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The enhanced amount shall be payable from the date of filing of the special leave petition before this Court, i.e., 02.07.2021”.

Also Read: Open Lands Are Shrinking, Yet Government Cannot Be Restrained From Using Allotted Land; Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL Against Construction On 'Playground'

The judgment of the Family Court as affirmed by the High Court stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent–husband shall pay the revised permanent alimony by the 5th of every succeeding month”, specifying that such payment shall commence from “05.02.2026”.

“The arrears of enhanced maintenance for the period from July, 2021 to January, 2026, amounting to Rs. 8,10,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- × 54 months), shall be paid either in one lump sum or in instalments over a period of four years. In the event of payment by instalments, not less than one-third of the arrears shall be paid through equated quarterly instalments”.

“With the aforesaid modification and directions, the appeal stands allowed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Alok Tripathi, Advocate-on-Record

For the Respondent: Mrs. Ruchika Gohil, Advocate; Mr. Anurag Gohil, Advocate; Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advocate-on-Record

Case Title: X v Y                                                                               
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5220 of 2024
Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Justice R. Mahadevan