The Supreme Court comes out with judgments which shine as gems in the realm of justice amid the rampant tumult of ongoing conflict in the matrimonial space.This is one of those judgments which stands out and would be referred to as a benchmark precedent in the times to come.
The subject matter of the case was a transfer application made by the wife of the divorce petition filed by the husband.Meanwhile the husband moved an application under Article 142 seeking dissolution of marriage on the basis of irretrievable breakdown.
The facts were that the couple had cohabited for 3 monthe before dispute arose between them regarding the husbands attention towards his ex-wife, children with ex-wife and his ailing father.
The wife filed multiple criminal cases against the husband for offenses under 498A, 376,377 and 506 IPC.Multiple disputes in different courts were pending between the parties.
The wife wanted alimony at par with the amount paid by the husband to his ex-wife which amounted to 500 crores.
The Supreme Court held that 498A was a welfare legislation and that it is not meant to chastise, domineer or extort from husbands.Criminal complaints between spouses lead to intense suffering of both the parties involved.
Regarding maintenance the Supreme Court opined as under:
“We have serious reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth withthe other party. It is often seen that parties in their application for
maintenance or alimony highlight the assets, status and income oftheir spouse, and then ask for an amount that can equal theirwealth to that of the spouse. However, there is an inconsistency in
this practice, because the demands of equalisation are made onlyin cases where the spouse is a person of means or is doing well forhimself. But such demands are conspicuously absent in cases where the wealth of the spouse has decreased since the time of separation. There cannot be two different approaches to seekingand granting maintenance or alimony, depending on the status and income of the spouse. The law of maintenance is aimed at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice and dignityof the individual. The husband is under a legal obligation to sufficiently provide for his wife. As per settled law, the wife isentitled to be maintained as far as possible in a manner that is similar to what she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home
while the parties were together. But once the parties haveseparated, it cannot be expected of the husband to maintain her as per his present status all his life. If the husband has moved ahead
and is fortunately doing better in life post his separation, then toask him to always maintain the status of the wife as per his own changing status would be putting a burden on his own personal
progress. We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?”
Thus the Supreme court decried the practice of seeking parity with the ex-husband in terms of financial assets and granted divorce to the husband on the basis of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.The Supreme court granted permanent alimony of 12 crores to the petitioner.
Rinku Baheti VS Sandesh Sharda
2024 INSC 1014