Permanent alimony is intended as a measure of social justice and not as a tool for enrichment or equalising the financial status of two capable individuals, the Court said.
The Delhi High Court recently held that alimony cannot be awarded to a spouse if he/she is financially self-sufficient and independent.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said that it is a settled principle that permanent alimony is intended as a measure of social justice and not as a tool for enrichment or equalising the financial status of two capable individuals.
The law requires the person seeking alimony to demonstrate a genuine need for financial assistance, the Court stressed.
“Judicial discretion under Section 25 [of Hindu Marriage Act (HMA)] cannot be exercised to award alimony where the applicant is financially self-sufficient and independent, and such discretion must be exercised properly and judiciously, based on the record, the relative financial capacities of the parties, and the absence of any material demonstrating economic vulnerability on the part of the Appellant,” the Court held.
The Bench made the observation while upholding a family court order denying permanent alimony to a woman and granting divorce to her husband on the grounds of cruelty.
It was stated that the couple, both of whom had been previously divorced, married in January 2010, but separated within 14 months. The husband was a practising advocate, and the wife a Group A Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS) officer.
The husband alleged mental and physical cruelty by the wife, including abusive language, insulting text messages, denial of conjugal rights and humiliation in professional and social spheres. The wife denied these allegations and counter-accused the husband of cruelty.
The family court dissolved the marriage and also recorded that the wife demanded ₹50 lakhs as a financial settlement for agreeing to the dissolution of the marriage. This was stated in her affidavit and reiterated during cross-examination.
The family court refused to allow the same.
After considering the case, the High Court found no fault with the family court order.
It held that when a spouse, while ostensibly resisting the dissolution of marriage, simultaneously predicates consent on payment of a substantial sum, it indicates that the resistance is not anchored in affection, reconciliation or the preservation of the marital bond, but in pecuniary considerations.
“The inference drawn by the learned family court that the Appellant’s approach bore a clear financial dimension cannot be said to be unfounded or unreasonable; rather, it was a logical conclusion based on the evidence before it,” the Bench observed.
Further, the High Court noted that the wife had used degrading language against the husband, used filthy epithets for his mother and called him of illegitimate birth which amounted to mental cruelty.
The text messages in question contained imputations of illegitimacy, filthy epithets directed at the Respondent’s mother and other degrading expressions a pattern of conduct which, cumulatively, the learned Family Court was entitled to regard as causing grave mental agony to the Respondent.”
Ultimately, the Court also denied the woman’s demand for alimony, noting that she was a senior government official earning a substantial income and is financially independent.
“The short duration of cohabitation, the absence of children, the Appellant‟s substantial and independent income, and the lack of credible evidence of financial necessity cumulatively negate any claim for permanent alimony. Accordingly, we find no justifiable ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Family Court, and the prayer for permanent alimony is therefore rejected,” the Bench concluded.
