GUWAHATI: The tragic suicide of Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash, allegedly due to harassment by his estranged wife and in-laws, has sparked a renewed focus on matrimonial laws. Some media reports claim these laws are often biased in favour of women, highlighting a recent Supreme Court judgment on alimony. However, a closer analysis reveals that the judgment primarily reiterates pre-existing legal principles rather than establishing new ones.
ALSO READ: Household Penalised ₹50,000 For Polluting Basistha River In Guwahati’s Sijubari
The case involved a couple who had been living separately since 2004. The husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, while the wife sought maintenance, which was periodically increased over the years. The husband later challenged a 2018 family court order directing him to pay ₹1,15,000 as interim maintenance, which the Delhi High Court enhanced to ₹1,45,000, applicable retroactively from 2009 to 2016.
Instead of prolonging litigation, the couple decided to resolve their differences amicably before the Supreme Court. A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna Varale dissolved their marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution, acknowledging their prolonged separation of over two decades.
With the marriage dissolved, the Court turned its attention to determining permanent alimony. Referring to prior judgments, it outlined key factors influencing the determination of alimony:
-Income and financial status of both parties.
-Conduct during the marriage.
-Social and financial standing.
-Personal expenses.
-Dependents’ needs and responsibilities.
-The lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage.
-Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities.
-Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
-Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations and liabilities.
The Bench emphasised that there is no fixed formula for calculating permanent alimony, as each case depends on its unique circumstances.
In context to the impending case, the Court also revisited the 2020 Rajnesh v. Neha ruling, which introduced detailed guidelines for calculating interim compensation and permanent alimony. It also mandated the disclosure of assets and liabilities by both parties during maintenance proceedings. These principles were rooted in earlier decisions, such as the 2007 Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde case, and were reiterated in subsequent rulings, including the July 2024 Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel decision.
The December 10 judgment (Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain) merely summarised these existing guidelines, contrary to media claims suggesting they were newly established.
In the current case, the Court considered the wife’s unemployment and the husband’s stable financial status as a banker. It ordered a one-time settlement of ₹5 crore to the wife for pending claims. Additionally, ₹1 crore was allocated for their son’s higher education, acknowledging the husband’s prior payment of ₹72 lakh in maintenance arrears.
The Supreme Court’s judgment reiterates established principles for determining alimony, stating that there is no one-size-fits-all formula. Media reports mischaracterising the ruling as a novel development overlook the nuanced continuity of legal guidelines in matrimonial cases.
(With inputs from Bar & Bench)