Delhi High Court has decided how alimony is not something that can be given to a spouse who is independent and financially stable because alimony is a form of social justice and is not an instrument of enriching or equalising finances among competent men.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar expressed that in the law, the individual seeking alimony must prove that he has a real need of the money.
The Court has held that due to the fact that in question, the applicant was financially independent and stable, judicial discretion according to Section 25 [of Hindu Marriage Act (HMA)] cannot be used to grant alimony and that discretion should be exercised reasonably and properly, depending on the record, based on the relative financial capacities of the parties and because there were no material reasons showing that an individual, the applicant, was economically vulnerable.
The Bench came up with the observation because it was enforcing a family court order that did not grant a woman permanent alimony and divorced a husband based on cruelty reasons.
Nor was the husband and wife, practising advocate and the wife an officer in the Group A Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS), previously married before they got married in January 2010. Their divorce happened in 14 months of marriage.
The husband accused him of mental and physical mistreatment, which comprised of abusive language, derogatory text messages, refusal to have conjugal rights and humiliation both at work and in society. Nevertheless, the wife dismissed the charges and accused him of being a sadist.
The family court annulled the marriage and expressed that the wife had requested harmony 50 lakh as a finance recuperation with the purpose to consent to the separation a provision she had confessed in her affidavit and in the cross review, Bar and Bench reported.
The High Court did not see any need of interfering with this finding.
The Bench stated that an implication made by the learned family court that the approach adopted by the Appellant had a definite financial line cannot be described as being unfounded or unreasonable, but a logical conclusion due to the evidence provided before it.
It also noted that the wife had addressed her husband and his mother in terms that were demeaning and told him that he was illegitimate of birth which constituted mental cruelty.
Finally, the High Court did not award permanent alimony stating that the woman was a top government official who received good salary and was therefore financially stable.
The small period of living together, the fact that the Appellant did not have any children, and good and independent income, combined with a failure to narrate evidence of financial need, all score against the possibility of permanent alimony. To this end therefore we see no reasonable reason why we should interfere with the decisions of the intelligent Family Court, and the request that the permanent alimony be granted is dismissed accordingly, and her petition is denied.
An Increased Alimony Requests Fall under Judicial review
The decision is made against an increasing trend in India in which high-value alimony claims are on the rise which courts have been questioning.
In July, a petition filed by a woman to get a house at Mumbai, maintenance of Rs 12 crore and buying a car worth billions of rupees, BMW made the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai comment that the woman was overqualified and could easily spend her life.
“Aap itni padi likhi hai. Aapko khudko mangna nahi chahiye aur khudko kama ke khana chahiye (You are so educated, you must not ask and earn your livelihood),” the Chief Justice had said.
For more updates follow: Latest News on NEWZZY
