Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court of India recently expressed concerns about the misuse of domestic violence and dowry laws, cautioning against their abuse in matrimonial disputes for monetary gains. Addressing alimony, the Court stated that a divorced wife cannot demand permanent alimony to equalize wealth with her ex-husband. While the wife is entitled to maintenance reflecting her standard of life during marriage, the husband’s improved financial status post-divorce cannot justify higher alimony demands. 

What was the Background of Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda ? 

• The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) got married on July 31, 2021, in Pune according to Hindu rites, and it was a second marriage for both parties. 
• The respondent is a US citizen working in IT consultancy, while the petitioner has degrees in Finance, Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences. 
• Marital discord began over issues related to the respondent's involvement with his children from first marriage, ex-wife, and ailing father. 
• Multiple divorce petitions were filed - first under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act (withdrawn), second by mutual consent (dismissed), and third on grounds of cruelty (contested). 
• The petitioner filed two FIRs in December 2022 - one against respondent's employee and another against respondent and his father alleging various criminal offenses including rape, domestic violence, and IT Act violations. 
• The respondent was arrested at Mumbai airport based on a Look Out Circular and spent nearly a month in custody before getting bail in January 2023. 
• The petitioner filed a transfer petition seeking to move the divorce proceedings from Bhopal to Pune Family Court. 
• The respondent filed an application under Article 142(1) seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown, claiming the wife demanded large sums of money (initially Rs. 8 crores, later Rs. 25 crores) for mutual consent divorce. 
• The wife contested this, claiming discrimination from husband and in-laws, and alleged pressure from respondent's ex-wife and children were behind his divorce attempts. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that a divorced wife cannot seek permanent alimony merely to achieve equal wealth status with her ex-husband, expressing serious reservations about the trend of using maintenance claims as a means of wealth equalization. 
• The Court established that while a wife is entitled to maintain her matrimonial lifestyle as far as possible, the husband cannot be perpetually obligated to maintain her according to his evolving financial status post-separation. 
• The Court questioned the inconsistency in maintenance demands, noting that parties seek wealth equalization only when the spouse is financially prosperous, but such claims are notably absent when the spouse's wealth has diminished post-separation. 
• The Bench noted that maintenance law's primary objective is to empower the destitute and achieve social justice and individual dignity, rather than serve as a mechanism for wealth redistribution. 
• The Court clarified that determination of maintenance should be based on multiple factors including the wife's income, reasonable needs, residential rights, and other relevant circumstances, rather than solely on the husband's income or previous settlements. 
• In addressing the specific case, the Court expressed surprise at the petitioner's attempt to seek equalization not only with the respondent but also with his ex-wife's settlement. 
• The Bench noted that alimony disputes typically become the most contentious aspect of marital proceedings, often accompanied by numerous accusations aimed at uncovering the opposing party's assets and income. 
• The Court ultimately determined that maintenance claims must be evaluated based on factors specific to the case at hand, rather than comparative analysis with previous settlements or solely based on the husband's current financial status. 

Legal Framework for Alimony in India Across Different Personal Laws 

• Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 
  • Section 24: Provides for interim maintenance during pending proceedings 
  • Section 25: Covers permanent alimony and maintenance after divorce 
  • Applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs 
  • Either spouse can claim maintenance 
• Under Special Marriage Act, 1954: 
  • Section 36: Deals with interim maintenance 
  • Section 37: Provides for permanent alimony post-divorce 
  • Applies to inter-religious marriages 
  • Similar provisions to Hindu Marriage Act 
• Under Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for Christians): 
  • Section 36: Covers interim maintenance 
  • Section 37: Deals with permanent alimony 
  • Courts consider income/property of both spouses 
  • Maintenance during proceedings and after divorce 
• Under Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: 
  • Section 39: Specifically provides for permanent alimony 
  • Wife can claim maintenance after divorce 
  • Court determines amount based on circumstances 
  • Considers standard of living during marriage 
• Under Muslim Personal Law: 
  • Based on Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 
  • Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 
  • Provides maintenance during iddat period 
  • Based on Islamic principles and Quran 
• Under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 
  • Section 20: Provides monetary relief 
  • Covers loss of earnings and medical expenses 
  • Includes maintenance for woman and children 
• Under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 
  • Section 125: Maintenance order provision 
  • Applies across religions 
  • Provides for wives, children, and parents 
  • Enforceable through criminal proceedings 
• Under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: 
  • Section 18: Right of wife to maintenance during marriage 
  • Independent of other proceedings 
  • Specifies grounds for maintenance claims 

How Quantum of Maintenace Decide? 

The quantum of maintenance as per Section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: 

• For Wife, Children, and Aged/Infirm Parents: 
• The court must consider the position and social status of both parties to ensure maintenance aligns with their standard of living. 
• The reasonable needs and requirements of the claimant are evaluated to determine basic necessities and lifestyle requirements. 
• If the claimant lives separately, the court examines whether such separate living is justified under the circumstances. 
• The court assesses the claimant's existing financial resources including:  
  • Value of owned property 
  • Income from property 
  • Personal earnings 
  • Any other income sources 
• The total number of persons entitled to maintenance under the Act is considered to ensure fair distribution. 
• For Dependents: 
  • The court evaluates the net value of the deceased's estate after accounting for all debts. 
  • Any provisions made for the dependent in the deceased's will are taken into consideration. 
  • The degree of relationship between the dependent and deceased is assessed. 
  • The court considers the dependent's reasonable requirements and needs. 
  • Past relations between the dependent and deceased are evaluated. 
• The dependent's financial position is assessed through:  
  • Value of owned property 
  • Income from property 
  • Personal earnings 
  • Other income sources 
• The total number of dependents entitled to maintenance under the Act is considered for fair distribution. 

What were the Case Laws Referred to by the Court? 

Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024): 

• The Supreme Court established that parties' status is a crucial factor, which includes evaluating their social standing, lifestyle, and financial background. 
• The Court mandated assessment of reasonable needs of wife and dependent children, covering essential expenses like food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care. 
• The Court held that the wife's educational and professional qualifications, along with employment history, must be considered to evaluate potential self-sufficiency. 
• Justice Vikram Nath emphasized that any independent income or property owned by the wife should be factored in to determine if it's sufficient to maintain the marital standard of living. 
• The Court recognized that sacrifice of employment opportunities for family responsibilities (child-rearing, elder care) affecting career prospects must be given due consideration. 

Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021): 

• The Supreme Court explicitly stated there is no fixed formula for calculating maintenance, emphasizing a balanced consideration of multiple factors. 
• The Court criteria including:  
  • Social and financial status of parties 
  • Reasonable needs of wife and dependent children 
  • Qualifications and employment status 
  • Independent income/assets 
  • Matrimonial home's standard of living 
• The Court specifically included reasonable litigation costs for non-working wife as a factor to be considered. 
• The judgment emphasized consideration of husband's financial capacity, including his income, existing maintenance obligations, and liabilities. 
• The Court clarified that these factors are illustrative and not exhaustive, providing flexibility for courts to consider additional relevant circumstances.