In many cases, Indian courts have refused or reduced alimony considering contextual factors such as wilful unemployment
“You are so educated, you should earn for yourself and shouldn’t ask for it”: this is what the Supreme Court told a woman — with an MBA and a background in IT — who asked for a luxury car, a house in Mumbai and Rs 12 crore in maintenance as alimony after being separated from her husband within 18 months of marriage.
Rapped for not working of her own volition, the woman tried to justify her demands by saying her husband is “very rich” and sought for the marriage to be nullified claiming that she was schizophrenic.
In this context, it would be interesting to look at cases in India where the courts have called out working women, who have demanded unusually high alimony. According to the law, working women can and do receive alimony in India, especially when there is income disparity between the spouses or they are unable to maintain their “pre-divorce” standard of living. In many cases, however, the courts have refused or reduced alimony considering contextual factors such as wilful unemployment.
Let’s take a look at some cases:
- Jayam Ravi v Aarti Ravi: Tamil actor Jayam Ravi’s wife demanded Rs 40 lakh per month in maintenance, which drew widespread attention. The case is ongoing.
- Mohammed Shami v Hasin Jahan: The Calcutta High Court ordered cricketer Mohammed Shami to pay Rs 4 lakh per month – Rs 1.5 lakh to the wife and Rs 2.5 lakh for their daughter – after Hasin Jahan originally sought Rs 7 lakh with an additional amount of Rs 3 lakh.
- Hema Upadhyay v Chintan Upadhyay (artist): Hema demanded Rs 2 lakh per month as alimony, stating her work and lifestyle. But the court reduced her maintenance amount to Rs 40,000 per month citing insufficient justification.
- As recently as May, in a Delhi HC judgment, a teacher who quit her job to raise her child was entitled to 80 percent of her husband’s declared income even after resignation. The court held her resignation was constrained by caregiving needs.
- In another case in June, the Bombay High Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month despite the wife earning Rs 40,000 per month because her income was insufficient to maintain her past standard of living, while the husband earned significantly more.
- In a high-profile permanent settlement case, not involving celebrities, the Supreme Court last year awarded Rs 2 crore one-time alimony to a woman whose second marriage lasted under a year. She was earning Rs 1.39 lakh per month, while her husband earned Rs 5 lakh.
- Last year, the Madhya Pradesh HC reduced a woman’s demand of Rs 60,000 per month as maintenance noting her earning capacity. The amount was reduced to Rs 40,000 per month, while the court said the excessive demand was unjustified.
- The Karnataka HC last year outright dismissed a maintenance demand of Rs 6 lakh per month. The woman sought Rs 6.16 lakh per month for branded clothes, jewellery, medical expenses with no dependents. The court observed that this was “exploitation and beyond tolerance”.
- The Delhi HC, in one of its older cases from 2016, ruled that qualified professionals cannot demand alimony. A working chartered accountant (CA) had demanded Rs 3 lakh/ per month with additional expenses, but claimed only Rs 7,000 as income. The court rejected the plea, stating the woman had been practising since 2003 and earning far more.
WHAT IS THE MAINTENANCE LAW?
Maintenance as defined under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is meant to address genuine hardship, not enable dependency or luxury lifestyles unsupported by facts.
In most of these cases, courts have stressed that maintenance laws are not to foster idleness, and high demands without documentation or justification are dismissed. They use several factors to assess maintenance, including the woman’s earning capacity, marital lifestyle, childcare, and the husband’s income.
The SC has stressed on realistic financial claims in divorce cases, cautioning against the misuse of laws meant to protect vulnerable parties. This includes situations where alimony demands might be excessive or exploitative.