The Supreme Court has ruled that a husband’s responsibility to maintain his ex-wife does not end just because she is educated or has parental support. The Court enhanced monthly maintenance, citing inflation and the need for dignity after divorce.
NEW DELHI: In a ruling on post-divorce maintenance, the Supreme Court of India said that a husband cannot escape his legal duty to maintain his ex-wife merely because she is educated or receives support from her parents. The Court firmly rejected arguments based on the husband’s claimed financial difficulties and personal liabilities arising from a second marriage that had also failed.
The case came before the Supreme Court after a wife challenged an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had refused to interfere with a Family Court decision fixing her permanent alimony at Rs. 15,000 per month. The husband had opposed any increase, stating that the wife was well-qualified, capable of earning, and backed by her parents. He also pleaded financial incapacity, citing responsibilities and losses linked to his second marriage.
While examining the matter, the Supreme Court made strong observations on the nature of marriage and the continuing responsibility of a husband even after divorce.
The Court observed:
“Marriage, as an institution in our society, is founded on emotional bonding, companionship, and mutual support, which cannot be evaluated in purely monetary terms. A woman often enters matrimony with legitimate aspirations of a stable and dignified life
When such a marriage breaks down, the obligation of the husband to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity does not come to an end merely on the ground that she is educated or has parental support. Post-divorce, the wife is entitled to live a life consistent with the standard of living she was accustomed to during the subsistence of the marriage.”
The Bench of Justices SVN Bhatti and R Mahadevan noted that divorce does not wipe out the economic imbalance created during a long marriage, especially where one spouse has structured life choices around the marital relationship. The Court emphasized that dignity and standard of living cannot be reduced to bare survival after separation.
The wife approached the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of maintenance, arguing that the amount of Rs. 15,000 per month was wholly insufficient when the husband’s monthly income was assessed at around Rs. 1,60,000. She contended that the existing maintenance failed to reflect rising living costs and inflation.
On the other hand, the respondent-husband reiterated that the wife was highly educated and capable of supporting herself. He further claimed that his financial condition did not permit any increase in maintenance due to liabilities from his second marriage, which had also ended unsuccessfully.
The Supreme Court rejected these submissions and took note of changing economic realities. The Court clearly held that maintenance cannot remain frozen in time while the cost of living steadily rises.
In this context, the Court observed:
“Considering the present cost of living, the impact of inflation over the past decade, and the overall circumstances of the parties, we are of the view that the amount awarded by the Family Court, as affirmed by the High Court, is inadequate and warrants enhancement.”
To support its reasoning, the Court referred to earlier landmark judgments, including Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, which in turn relied on Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801.
The Court quoted the settled legal position as follows:
“It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.”
After evaluating all circumstances, the Supreme Court allowed the wife’s appeal and directed enhancement of the maintenance amount.
The Court finally ordered:
“The permanent alimony payable to the appellant – wife is enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- per month to Rs. 30,000/- per month, which shall be payable by the respondent – husband.”
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Referred In This Case
| Law / Statute | Section | Explanation | How Applied in This Case |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 13 | Provides grounds for dissolution of marriage by divorce | The husband obtained a decree of divorce under this provision; the wife did not challenge the divorce itself |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 25 | Empowers the court to grant permanent alimony and maintenance after divorce | Used as the legal basis for awarding and enhancing permanent alimony to the wife |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 125 | Provides a summary remedy for maintenance to prevent destitution | Referred through precedent to explain the philosophy of maintenance and dignity |
| Constitution of India | Article 142 | Grants Supreme Court power to do complete justice | Relied upon through Rajnesh v. Neha for framing binding maintenance guidelines |
| Supreme Court Precedent | Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Lays down comprehensive guidelines on maintenance | Used to assess income, lifestyle, inflation, and capacity to pay |
| Supreme Court Precedent | Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801 | Holds that wife’s education or parental wealth is irrelevant | Directly cited to reject the husband’s defence |
| Supreme Court Precedent | Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353 | Emphasises dignity over mere survival in maintenance cases | Reinforced the principle that maintenance is not charity |
Case Details
- Case Title: Anamika Jain Versus Dr. Atul Jain. Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5220 of 2024)
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
- Date of Judgment: 28 January 2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. V. N. Bhatti & Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
- Counsels:
- For the Appellant (Wife): Mr. Alok Tripathi, Advocate-on-Record
- For the Respondent (Husband): Mrs. Ruchika Gohil, Advocate. Mr. Anurag Gohil, Advocate. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advocate-on-Record
Key Takeaways
- The judgment confirms that maintenance liability continues even after divorce, regardless of the wife’s education or parental support, placing lifelong financial exposure on men without parallel accountability.
- A man’s second marriage failure or additional liabilities were given no legal weight, showing how men’s changing personal circumstances are often ignored in maintenance jurisprudence.
- Inflation is judicially recognised only to enhance maintenance, but rising costs, taxation, and economic pressure on men are rarely balanced with enforceable safeguards.
- Courts continue to treat maintenance as a dignity right for women, while men’s dignity, mental health, and financial survival remain unaddressed in law.
- The ruling highlights the urgent need for gender-neutral maintenance laws and clear limits, to prevent permanent financial punishment of men after marital breakdowns.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.