Summary
The Supreme Court modified a High Court order on permanent alimony in a long-standing matrimonial case, adjusting the maintenance amount to reflect both parties’ financial realities while acknowledging the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Facts of the Case
- Marriage & Family: Rakhi and Raja Sadhukhan were married in June 1997 and had a son in August 1998.
- Legal Proceedings:
- In 2008, the husband filed for divorce under the Special Marriage Act, citing cruelty.
- The wife filed applications under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 of CrPC for interim maintenance.
- Over the years, multiple orders were passed granting varying amounts of interim relief.
- Trial Court Decision: In 2016, the suit was dismissed as cruelty was not proved.
- High Court Appeal: In 2019, the High Court reversed the decision, granted divorce, and ordered:
- Transfer of mortgaged flat to the wife.
- Residence rights for the wife and son.
- Permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000/month with 5% increase every three years.
- Payment of education-related costs for the son.
The wife challenged the alimony amount in the Supreme Court, seeking enhancement.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 27, Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Divorce on grounds including cruelty.
- Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Interim maintenance during litigation.
- Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Maintenance for wife and children.
- Evolving jurisprudence on permanent alimony and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Arguments:
Petitioner (Wife):
- Argued that Rs. 20,000/month was insufficient, given:
- Husband’s alleged income of ~Rs. 4,00,000/month.
- Her continued unemployment and lack of independent income.
- The lifestyle previously maintained during the marriage.
Respondent (Husband):
- Presented current monthly net income as Rs. 1,64,039, with total household expenses of Rs. 1,72,088.
- Highlighted:
- His remarriage and dependent family.
- The adult son (now 26) was no longer financially dependent.
- Ongoing financial responsibilities, including caring for aged parents.
- Previous employment with higher income is no longer relevant to his current circumstances.
Court’s Observations:
- The Court reviewed financial records, including salary slips, tax returns, and expense statements.
- Noted the husband’s consistent compliance with prior orders, including:
- Educational expenses.
- Flat transfer for the wife and son’s residence.
- Held that maintenance must ensure a reasonable standard of living, reflective of past lifestyle but balanced with the payer’s current capacity.
- Emphasized that the wife remained unmarried and continued to depend on maintenance as her sole support, requiring careful consideration.
Conclusion of the Judgment:
- The Supreme Court enhanced the permanent alimony to Rs. 50,000/month, with a 5% increase every two years.
- No further maintenance was ordered for the son, who is now an adult.
- Clarified that the son’s inheritance rights remain intact and can be pursued separately under the law.
- Contempt petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Comments from the author of this website
As someone who works closely with men going through the legal system, I’ve seen firsthand how cases like this reflect the challenges they face. While the judgment acknowledges some realities—like an adult child no longer needing support—it still leaves several important concerns unaddressed.
From my perspective, the fact that a man continues to bear financial responsibility nearly 17 years after separation—despite transferring property, supporting his child’s education, and maintaining compliance with every order—is deeply concerning. What strikes me most is that no questions were raised about the wife’s efforts (or lack thereof) to become financially independent. Over so many years, there appears to have been no expectation or even inquiry into whether she could support herself.
I also find it problematic that courts often base maintenance on the husband’s past income, even when his current obligations—including remarriage, dependent family, and aging parents—clearly affect his financial bandwidth. In this case, the husband’s disclosed net income was lower than his monthly expenses, yet the expectation to pay substantial maintenance remains.
Another recurring issue is the assumption that men will always manage somehow. There’s no structured review process for adjusting alimony if a man’s financial or personal situation changes. Once the amount is set, it becomes a long-term obligation—often lasting longer than the marriage itself.
This case highlights a broader pattern: men are frequently expected to shoulder the entire financial burden post-divorce, even when the marriage has irretrievably broken down and responsibilities should evolve. It’s time we ask harder questions about shared accountability, realistic earning expectations for both spouses, and a time-bound approach to maintenance. Without that, these situations will continue to create silent suffering—often missed in the broader conversation around matrimonial justice.
Final Thoughts:
This case reflects the nuanced tension between legal rights and lived realities in matrimonial disputes. The Court attempted to strike a balance between fairness and financial sustainability, but it also reveals systemic gaps in how post-marital obligations are assessed.
For those navigating similar legal challenges, this judgment is a reminder of the importance of clear financial documentation, consistent compliance, and the need to advocate firmly for a realistic, fact-based assessment of responsibilities. As the law evolves, the goal must be to ensure dignity and fairness for both parties—not just in form, but in lasting, practical effect.
Read Complete Judgement Here