The supreme court ruled on thursday that a divorced wife cannot expect lifelong alimony only to preserve equal wealth status with her ex-husband, amid the growing controversy over exorbitant alimony requests in divorce cases and the abuse of domestic violence laws. In divorce disputes, the supreme court voiced displeasure with the growing trend of alimony demands as an "equalization of wealth with the other party."
As much as feasible, the wife is entitled to maintenance to maintain the same style of living she was used to with her husband, but this cannot be permanent, according to a bench made up of Justices BV Nagarathna and nk Singh. According to the court, it is unrealistic to expect the ex-husband to continue providing maintenance in his current capacity.
The bench stated that the ex-wife cannot request an increase in alimony to keep up with her ex-husband's lifestyle if his financial circumstances improve following the divorce. The court also questioned if his ex-wife would agree to a reduction in her alimony if the man's salary decreased for whatever reason.
When considering whether to provide permanent alimony following a divorce, the court rendered its decision. The lady in this case stated that her ex-husband presently possesses ₹5000 crores in assets in the united states and that he had given his previous wife ₹500 crore in alimony following their divorce, which was half of his fortune at the time, along with a residence in the United States. The man's second wife, the petitioner, insisted that her alimony be equal to both her ex-husband's first wife's alimony and his present fortune.
In essence, the lady sought alimony in the form of ₹500 crore and a home in the united states, similar to what was granted to the man's wife. The guy, however, rejected the demand, claiming that since his second marriage had only lasted a few months, the alimony could not be comparable to that of his first wife. Interestingly, the woman only spent three to four months with the US-citizen male before they split up.
"We have serious reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalization of wealth with the other party," Livelaw cited the bench as saying. It is common for parties to emphasize their spouse's possessions, position, and income in their maintenance or alimony applications before requesting a sum that would match their own riches.
The husband's income cannot be the sole consideration for determining alimony, the court ruled. Along with other considerations, the wife's legitimate requirements must be taken into account. According to the ruling, "The court must take into account not only the respondent-husband's income in this case, but also the petitioner-wife's income, her reasonable needs, her residential rights, and other comparable factors." Her right to maintenance must thus be determined by the circumstances that apply to her and not by the amount of money the respondent paid his ex-wife or by his income alone.
As much as feasible, the wife is entitled to maintenance to maintain the same style of living she was used to with her husband, but this cannot be permanent, according to a bench made up of Justices BV Nagarathna and nk Singh. According to the court, it is unrealistic to expect the ex-husband to continue providing maintenance in his current capacity.
The bench stated that the ex-wife cannot request an increase in alimony to keep up with her ex-husband's lifestyle if his financial circumstances improve following the divorce. The court also questioned if his ex-wife would agree to a reduction in her alimony if the man's salary decreased for whatever reason.
When considering whether to provide permanent alimony following a divorce, the court rendered its decision. The lady in this case stated that her ex-husband presently possesses ₹5000 crores in assets in the united states and that he had given his previous wife ₹500 crore in alimony following their divorce, which was half of his fortune at the time, along with a residence in the United States. The man's second wife, the petitioner, insisted that her alimony be equal to both her ex-husband's first wife's alimony and his present fortune.
In essence, the lady sought alimony in the form of ₹500 crore and a home in the united states, similar to what was granted to the man's wife. The guy, however, rejected the demand, claiming that since his second marriage had only lasted a few months, the alimony could not be comparable to that of his first wife. Interestingly, the woman only spent three to four months with the US-citizen male before they split up.
"We have serious reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalization of wealth with the other party," Livelaw cited the bench as saying. It is common for parties to emphasize their spouse's possessions, position, and income in their maintenance or alimony applications before requesting a sum that would match their own riches.
The husband's income cannot be the sole consideration for determining alimony, the court ruled. Along with other considerations, the wife's legitimate requirements must be taken into account. According to the ruling, "The court must take into account not only the respondent-husband's income in this case, but also the petitioner-wife's income, her reasonable needs, her residential rights, and other comparable factors." Her right to maintenance must thus be determined by the circumstances that apply to her and not by the amount of money the respondent paid his ex-wife or by his income alone.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel