Can Maintain Herself: Supreme Court Refuses To Grant Alimony To Wife On Ground Of Husband Becoming Unemployed
|The Supreme Court said that the claim of alimony is not justified, especially looking at the husband’s status which as of now is of an unemployed person.
The Supreme Court has refused to grant alimony to a wife, considering the fact that the husband became unemployed.
A Criminal Appeal was preferred by a man asserting that his wife got a fair settlement as alimony from the earlier divorce and seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against him.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria remarked, “We find absolutely no reason to disbelieve the appellant’s contention that he is no more in employment with Citi Bank. We refuse to place any reliance on the ‘LinkedIn’ profile as produced at Annexure A11 along with the additional reply. We also reckon the fact that the respondent-wife was gainfully employed and has the educational qualifications as also the potential, by way of her past experience in the field of information technology, to maintain herself.”
The Bench said that the claim of alimony is not justified, especially looking at the husband’s status which as of now is of an unemployed person.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Diwan appeared for the Appellant while the Respondent appeared in person.
Brief Facts
The parties were both divorced once and had attempted yet another experiment at marriage, which too failed miserably. The Appellant-husband had an autistic child from the first marriage and the ownership of the apartment he jointly owned with his first wife was released in his favour in the best interest of the minor child. The parties were residing in the said apartment. The husband asserted that it was due to irreconcilable disputes resulting in constant harassment by the Respondent-wife that he left the apartment and moved to Faridabad to stay with his parents and his differently-abled child, also forsaking his lucrative employment in a private bank. The wife on the contrary alleged continued intimidation and domestic violence at the hands of the husband after which he abandoned her and left her high and dry without any means to survive. The disputes between the parties resulted in a Complaint filed under Section 498-A IPC, leading to registration of an FIR which resulted in the launch of a criminal prosecution.
The High Court declined the revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). In the meanwhile, the wife initiated a criminal prosecution under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) against the husband and his parents in May 2017, in which month itself, the Appellant filed a Petition for divorce. The Family Court referred the case for mediation and thereafter, a settlement agreement was reached, signed by both parties in 2022. However, before the second motion, the wife resiled from the agreement which prompted the husband to approach the Bombay High Court. He also approached the Delhi High Court, alleging contempt and the Single Judge punished the wife for contempt which Order was set aside by the Division Bench on an Appeal. Being aggrieved, the husband was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above regard, noted, “The facts as detailed by us herein above and the acrimonious relations between the parties for the last 8 years without any let-up and the multiple legal proceedings pending, clearly indicate that the relationship has irretrievably broken down. We are convinced that the invocation of Article 142 is imperative in the above case to do complete justice to both the parties, on being satisfied that the marriage has been rendered totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation as held in Shilpa Sailesh.”
The Court was of the view that the terms of the settlement agreed upon, does justice to the estranged wife and does not unduly burden the husband.
“As we noticed at the outset the alimony received by the respondent on the dissolution of her first marriage is not a relevant consideration. But the appellant’s responsibility to look after an autistic child and his current financial status are relevant considerations”, it observed.
The Court further took note of the fact that the gift of apartment by the Appellant to the Respondent would reasonably take care of her even after divorce. It added that the wife is also a graduate Engineer with a Post-Graduate qualification in Management and was admittedly working, even at the time of the estrangement; termed as abandonment by the Respondent.
“As far as permanent alimony is concerned the respondent had no such claim when entering into a settlement. In fact, coercion, misrepresentation and fraud were alleged by the appellant, which we found to be unsubstantiated and remain in the realm of bland allegations. The respondent had even at the time of recording of the first motion transferred an amount of about Rs.10 lacs by way of demand draft to the appellant for settling the loan in which the apartment was mortgaged”, it observed.
Conclusion
The Bench said that there is nothing substantial in the Complainant leading to the registration of crime under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
“Surprisingly, Annexure P-3, which is a statement on which the crime was registered on 19.04.2018 speaks of the appellant having left Bombay for Faridabad, on the pretext of his father and son having fallen ill, on 06.04.2017. It is also stated that despite fervent pleas through e-mail to return, the appellant alleged schizophrenia on the respondent, accused her of having beat his son and also raised apprehension of her poisoning him. Allegations and counter allegations apart we perceive nothing more than ordinary marital squabbles, skirmishes and bickerings blown out of proportion; often leading to eternal strife, then estrangement and eventually divorce, as has been the trajectory in this case too”, it also remarked.
The Court concluded that the gift of the encumbrance free apartment would suffice insofar as the compensation for separation and it is also in the minor’s best interest that the gift is made of the property by his father to the second wife so as to effectuate the divorce on mutual consent.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, dissolved the marriage, and quashed the proceedings against the husband.
Cause Title- ABC v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 926)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, AOR S. S. Jauhar, Advocates Prabhjit Jauhar, Rosemary Raju, Tulika Bhatnagar, Shreya Narayan, and Sehaj Kataria.
Respondents: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Anurag Gharote, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, and Shrirang B. Varma.