The Supreme Court on Thursday emphasised that laws established for the welfare of women should not be misused as tools for harassment, intimidation or extortion against their husbands.
The Court highlighted that alimony is not intended to equalise the financial standing of former spouses, but to ensure that the dependent woman maintains a reasonable standard of living.
The Supreme Court’s ruling timed the outrage of techie Atul Subhas, who said that his separated wife and her family members had wanted Rs 2 lakh in maintenance every month, eventually raising it to Rs 3 crore annually.
Based on his present financial situation, the court decided that an ex-husband cannot be required to support his ex-wife indefinitely. Additionally, it noted that Hindu marriage was not viewed as a “commercial venture” but rather as a sacred institution that functioned as the foundation of a family.
According to a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mitha, “the women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of the law in their hands are beneficial legislation for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, dominate or extort from their husbands.”
Based on these conclusions, the court dissolved an estranged couple’s marriage due to its irretrievable breakdown. As a complete and final settlement for all of her claims, the husband was mandated to provide the estranged wife Rs 12 crore in permanent alimony within a month.
The wife had stated that the estranged husband gave the first wife at least Rs 500 crore upon their separation, excluding a house in Virginia and that he had a net worth of Rs 5,000 crore with several enterprises and assets in the US and India.
The judge stated that it must “not just consider the income of the respondent-husband here, but also bear in mind other factors such as the income of the petitioner-wife, her reasonable needs, her residential rights and other similar factors”.
“Parties’ tendency to demand maintenance or alimony as a means of equating their income with one another raises severe concerns for us. In their maintenance or alimony applications, it is common for parties to emphasise their spouse’s possessions, position and income before requesting a sum that would match their own wealth,” the court said.
The court said, “We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?”
The bench also saw cases where the woman and her family exploited criminal reports of major offences as a negotiating weapon, mostly to force the husband and his family to comply with their requests, which were mostly financial in nature.
The criminal proceedings brought by the woman against her estranged husband were also dismissed by the top court.
Also Read: “RSS Ideology Opposite to Gandhian Philosophy”: Ex-VC Opposes Event at Gujarat Vidyapith
