Supreme Court: Divorced Woman Who Remains Unmarried Has Right to Maintenance Matching Her Marital Standard of Living
The Supreme Court, however in a recent judgment has increased the permanent alimony to be paid to the wife to ₹50,000 per month, nearly doubling that which was awarded by the Calcutta High Court in order to see to it that she is able to live on the same standard of living that she was accustomed to live while under the wed lock and which reasonably secures her future. The Court made the following observation (scrutinizing) that the appellant-wife who is still unmarried and living separately from her husband: "was entitled to a maintenance which not only ensures her to live in the same style as she enjoyed during her days of living in the Nicolson Road, but that also should reasonably secure her future.
During the hearing, the wife shared that the alimony she was receiving was simply not enough to match the standard of living she had during the marriage. She highlighted that her husband, who works at the Institute of Hotel Management in Kolkata, brings home a net monthly income of ₹1.64 lakh. She argued that the amount she was being paid didn’t reflect today’s rising living costs or the fact that she depended entirely on this support to get by.
In his defense, the husband said he was already under financial pressure. He explained that he had a second wife to support, along with elderly parents and other family responsibilities. He also pointed out that their son, now 26, was financially independent and no longer needed his support.
But the Supreme Court wasn’t convinced by his arguments. Looking at his earnings and financial background, the Court observed that he was in a position to provide more. The judges emphasized that the wife was entitled to a level of maintenance that reflected the life she had while married and would help secure her future.
Taking all this into account, the Court increased her alimony to ₹50,000 per month, with a 5% rise every two years to account for inflation. The Court acknowledged that the wife continued to rely solely on this money for her living expenses.
On the issue of their son, the Court clarified that since he is now an adult, the father isn’t legally obligated to provide for him anymore. However, he’s free to help with education or other reasonable needs if he wishes. Importantly, the Court added that the son’s rights to inheritance remain unaffected and can be claimed as per the law
