Wife Cannot Seek Equalisation Of Status With Alimony Granted To Husband’s Ex-Wife: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court has held that a wife cannot seek an equalisation of status with the alimony granted to the husband’s ex-wife.
The Court dissolved the marriage between the husband and the wife, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Bench observed that the wife’s entitlement to maintenance has to be decided based on the factors applicable to her and does not depend on what the husband paid to his ex-wife or solely on his income.
The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed, “We have serious reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the other party. It is often seen that parties in their application for maintenance or alimony highlight the assets, status and income of their spouse, and then ask for an amount that can equal their wealth to that of the spouse.”
Senior Advocate N.K. Modi represented the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appeared for the Respondent.
The marriage between the husband, a U.S. citizen and the wife, a postgraduate in Finance and Naturopathy, took place in 2021. However, discord arose shortly after, allegedly over the husband’s ties to his children from a previous marriage and his ailing father.
The husband filed three successive divorce petitions, the first dismissed as withdrawn, the second filed jointly for mutual consent but dismissed for being premature, and the third, filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).
The wife on the other hand had filed a number of criminal cases, including FIRs under Sections 354, 376, 377, 420, 498A, 503, 506, and 509 of the IPC and Sections 66 and 67 of the IT Act, 2000, against the husband and his father. She alleged cruelty, cheating, and harassment, leading to the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) and the husband’s arrest.
The Supreme Court while granting divorce to the parties under Article 142(1) of the Constitution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, noted that the wife sought the dismissal of the husband’s application for divorce on the ground that she wishes to continue the marriage, while in the same breath, she demanded a huge sum of money as permanent alimony equalling the share received by the husband’s ex-wife.
“However, there is an inconsistency in this practice, because the demands of equalisation are made only in cases where the spouse is a person of means or is doing well for himself. But such demands are conspicuously absent in cases where the wealth of the spouse has decreased since the time of separation. There cannot be two different approaches to seeking and granting maintenance or alimony, depending on the status and income of the spouse,” the Bench noted.
The Court remarked, “We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?”
The Bench clarified that as per settled law, the wife was entitled to be maintained as much as possible in a manner that was similar to what she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home while the parties were together. But once the parties have separated, it cannot be expected of the husband to maintain her as per his present status all his life.
Consequently, the Court held that “the petitioner-wife in the instant case has sought equalisation of status not just with the respondent-husband but also with the ex-wife of the respondent. In our opinion, this cannot be an acceptable approach. The fixation of alimony depends on various factors and there cannot be any straight-jacket formula for the same. Thus, the petitioner cannot simply claim an amount equal to what the ex-wife of the respondent had received.”
The husband was directed to pay Rs. 12 Crores as maintenance to the wife. The Family Court had assessed Rs.10 crores as the quantum of permanent alimony, however, the Bench granted an additional amount of Rs. 2 crores so as to enable the wife to acquire another flat.
Cause Title: R v. S (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1014)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate N.K. Modi; AOR Anindita Mitra
Respondent: Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora; Advocate Satish L. Maneshinde, Shivali Sharma, Anupam Shukla, Anadi Kumar Taylor and Nikhil Maneshinde; AOR Priyank Upadhyay