Supreme Court Upholds Dignity In Divorce | Divorced Wife Who Remained Unmarried Entitled To Maintain Marital Standard Of Living
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta modified the quantum of permanent alimony awarded by the High Court in a divorce matter, holding that the sum originally granted was insufficient in light of the respondent’s earnings and the appellant's continued dependence on maintenance. The Court directed that the appellant-wife shall be paid Rs. 50,000/- per month as permanent alimony, subject to a 5% increase every two years. The Court also allowed the appeal and disposed of the contempt petition related to non-compliance of earlier orders.
The dispute arose following a marriage solemnised between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband on 18 June 1997. From this marriage, a son was born on 5 August 1998. Alleging cruelty, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage. The appellant-wife contested the proceedings and subsequently filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son.
By order dated 14 January 2010, the Trial Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. She also filed Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and vide order dated 28 March 2014, the Trial Court directed the respondent to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- to the son, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs.
The Matrimonial Suit was dismissed on 10 January 2016 by the Trial Court due to the respondent’s failure to prove cruelty. The respondent then filed FAT No. 122 of 2015 before the Calcutta High Court. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed CAN No. 4505 of 2025 seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- for herself and Rs. 20,000/- for the son, with litigation costs of Rs. 50,000/-. On 14 May 2015, the High Court directed payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance, later enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- on 14 July 2016 upon noting the respondent’s net monthly income of Rs. 69,000/-.
On 25 June 2019, the Calcutta High Court granted a decree of divorce based on mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, awarding permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the appellant-wife with a 5% increase every three years. The Court also directed the respondent to redeem the mortgage on the residential flat, transfer the title to the appellant’s name, allow her and the son to continue residence, and cover educational and tuition expenses for the son.
The appellant-wife challenged the quantum of alimony before the Supreme Court, leading to the present appeal. On 20 February 2023, the Supreme Court issued notice restricted to enhancement of permanent alimony. On 7 November 2023, noting absence of appearance from the respondent despite proof of service, the Court enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs. 75,000/- effective 1 November 2023.
The appellant contended that Rs. 20,000/-, initially granted as interim maintenance, was erroneously made final, and that the respondent was earning approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- monthly, a fact not duly considered by the High Court. She submitted that the awarded amount did not reflect the standard of living during the marriage.
In his response, the respondent stated that his current monthly income stood at Rs. 1,64,039/- from his employment with the Institute of Hotel Management, Taratala, Kolkata. He produced salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for 2023–24. He added that his monthly expenses totalled Rs. 1,72,088/-, and that he had remarried, had dependents including aged parents, and the 26-year-old son was no longer financially dependent.
The Supreme Court examined the submissions and financial documents submitted by both parties. The Bench "was of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision." The Court stated that "the respondent-husband’s income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount."
It further recorded that "the appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future." Stating the inflationary cost of living and her reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support, the Court noted that "a reassessment of the amount" was necessary.
The Court acknowledged the interim arrangement made earlier, whereby the appellant was granted Rs. 75,000/- per month starting from November 2023, but after assessing the record in totality, it settled on a revised permanent figure.
It observed: "In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife." The Court clarified that "this amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years."
Regarding the son, the Bench recorded: "As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses." It also clarified that "the son’s right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law."
The Court allowed the appeal and modified the High Court’s judgment.
The Court stated, "In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife." It further directed that "this amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years."
With regard to the appellant’s son, the Bench observed, "As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses." The Court clarified, "the son’s right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law."
In view of the foregoing, the Court allowed the appeal and modified the impugned High Court order to the extent that permanent alimony payable shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month, with a biennial increase of 5%.
The contempt petition was accordingly disposed of. Any other pending applications also stood disposed of
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Advocate-on-Record, Mrs. Rajshri Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Amit P. Shahi, Advocate, Mr. Anjan Datta, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Sethi, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Sumant A. Khan, Advocate, Mr. Manish Dhingra, Advocate, Mr. Rajendra Anbhule, Advocate, Mr. H. B. Dubey, Advocate, Mrs. Sona Khan, Advocate, Mr. Manish Bhandari, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Trikha Chanda, Advocate, Ms. Chanda Trikha, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rashid N. Azam, Advocate-on-Record, Mr. Nirmal Singh Shekhawat, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Rinny Abraham, Advocate, Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Danish Saifi, Advocate.
Case Title: Rakhi Sadhukhan vs. Raja Sadhukhan
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 789
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10209 of 2024 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 857 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
[Read/Download order]
