Supreme Court: Wife Entitled To Level Of Maintenance Reflective Of Standard Of Living She Enjoyed During Marriage
The Supreme Court modified an Order of the Calcutta High Court by increasing the permanent alimony payable to the wife in a divorce case.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a wife is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage.
The Court modified an Order of the Calcutta High Court by increasing the permanent alimony payable to the wife in a divorce case. The Court allowed an Appeal filed by the wife challenging the quantum of alimony awarded as not being commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the parties during their marriage.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that “we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The respondent-husband’s income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. 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. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.”
AOR Ashutosh Dubey appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Rashid N. Azam represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The High Court had allowed the husband's Appeal, granting a decree of divorce and awarding permanent alimony to the husband.
However, the wife contended that the amount which the High Court made final was originally awarded as interim maintenance, and the quantum of alimony awarded was not commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the parties during the marriage.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held, “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. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. 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. We clarify that the son’s right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, as noted above.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 789)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Ashutosh Dubey; Advocates Rajshri Dubey, Abhishek Chauhan, Amit P Shahi, Anjan Datta, Rahul Sethi, Gaurav Yadav, Sumant A Khan, Manish Dhingra, Rajendra Anbhule, H B Dubey, Sona Khan, Manish Bhandari, Amit Kumar, Trikha Chanda and Chanda Trikha
Respondent: AOR Rashid N. Azam; Advocates Nirmal Singh Shekhawat, Rahul Yadav, Rinny Abraham, Anil Kumar Yadav and Danish Saifi