While deciding a matter of dissolution of marriage and demand of alimony by the appellant who is an officer of the IRTS, a highly esteemed branch of the Indian Civil Services, from the respondent/ husband, who is a practicing lawyer, the Delhi High Court canvassed a strong remark that “when a spouse, while ostensibly resisting the dissolution of marriage, simultaneously predicates consent thereto upon payment of a substantial sum, such conduct inevitably indicates that the resistance is not anchored in affection, reconciliation, or the preservation of the marital bond, but in pecuniary considerations”.
The High Court strongly asserted that judicial discretion under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriages Act cannot be exercised to award alimony where the applicant/ wife is financially self-sufficient and independent, and such discretion must be exercised properly and judiciously, based on the record, the relative financial capacities of the parties, and the absence of any material demonstrating economic vulnerability on the part of the applicant.
Essentially, the Court clarified that the provision under Section 25 is fundamentally equitable in nature and aims to secure financial justice between spouses, ensuring that a party lacking independent means of subsistence is not left destitute following the dissolution of marriage. However, the grant of such relief is not automatic; it is contingent upon proof of genuine financial necessity and equitable considerations.
Thus, the Court held that the permanent alimony is intended as a measure of social justice and not as a tool for enrichment or equalizing the financial status of two capable individuals. The law requires that the applicant demonstrate a genuine need for financial assistance.
Since the evidences on record sufficiently demonstrated serious nature of the abusive communications and related conduct by the appellant, the corroborative contemporaneous incidents, and the legitimate findings drawn by the Family Court proving that the appellant’s stance was completely motivated by a monetary element, the High Court upheld the order passed by the Family Court that the respondent/ husband had established cruelty on the part of the appellant and therefore, no case of permanent alimony has been made out by the appellant.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the applicant/ wife in the present case is a senior government officer, and her steady and substantial income, and the absence of dependents collectively establish that she is fully capable of maintaining herself.
The Bench therefore concurred with the reasoning adopted by the Family Court and refused any judicial intervention observing no evidence of financial incapacity, duress, or other compelling circumstances. The short duration of cohabitation, the absence of children, the appellant’s substantial and independent income, and the lack of credible evidence of financial necessity cumulatively negate any claim for permanent alimony.
Emphasizing that maintenance law exists to prevent destitution, not to redistribute wealth between financially capable individuals, the Bench underscored the concept of alimony entitlement for dual-income marriages across India.
Briefly, in this case, the marriage between the appellant, a senior officer of the Indian Railway Traffic Service, and the respondent, a practicing advocate, was solemnised in 2010, and no children were born from the wedlock. The matrimonial cohabitation proved tragically short-lived and serious differences arose between the parties, leading to increasing discord and acrimony. The respondent eventually left the matrimonial home bringing an effective end to their cohabitation. The marriage lasted barely ten months of actual cohabitation.
Later, the respondent filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging systematic mental cruelty inflicted by the appellant, including verbal abuse and degrading language, denial of conjugal relation, professional defamation, expulsion of in-laws, and mental agony. The appellant vehemently denied the allegations and alleged that the respondent pressurized her to misuse her official position to secure his appointment as a panel lawyer for the Railways. She also alleged dietary coercion and caste-based humiliation.
The Family Court finally dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. However, the Family Court denied the appellant’s claim for permanent alimony, finding no justification for such relief given her financial independence.
Appearances:
Advocates Sarim Naved and Zeeshan Ahmad, for the Appellant
Senior Advocate Rakesh Tiku and Advocate Arpan Wadhawan, for the Respondent
