Case Name : Rinku Baheti Vs Sandesh Sharda

According to the Supreme Court, a divorced women cannot ask for ongoing alimony in order to achieve financial equality with her ex-husband. As a “equilization of wealth with the other party,” the Court voiced reservations about the tendency in marital procedures to seek maintenance or alimony. The husband cannot be expected to support his wife given his current situation in life, even though she has the right to be maintained, to the extent that it is feasible, to the same standards of living that she was used to in the marital residence. The divorced wife cannot request a greater alimony just because the husband has moved on and achieved better financial status since their separation.

“We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?” The Court asked.

A bench made up of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh expressed the following concerns: “Parties’ propensity to demand maintenance or alimony as a means of equating their income with one another raises severe concerns for us. It is common for parties to emphasize their spouse’s assets, status, and income in their maintenance or alimony applications before requesting a sum that would match their own riches. This practice is inconsistent, though, as equalization demands are only made when the spouse has money or is doing well for himself. However, in situations where the spouse’s wealth has declined since the time of separation, such demands are noticeably missing. Depending on the spouse’s status and income, there cannot be two distinct methods for requesting and receiving maintenance or alimony. This practice is inconsistent, though, as equalization demands are only made when the spouse has money or is doing well for himself. However, in situations where the spouse’s wealth has declined since the time of separation, such demands are noticeably missing. Depending on the spouse’s status and income, there cannot be two distinct methods for requesting and receiving maintenance or alimony. The goal of the maintenance law is to uphold social fairness, individual dignity, and the empowerment of the poor.

The husband is required by law to support his wife adequately. According to established law, the woman is entitled to maintenance that is, to the greatest extent feasible, comparable to what she was used to in her married house during the time that the parties were together. However, the husband cannot be expected to support her in his current position for the rest of his life after the couple have split. Asking the husband to always preserve the wife position in accordance with his own evolving status would be a burden on his own development if he has moved on and is thankfully doing better in life after their separation.

The Court was making a decision regarding permanent alimony following the dissolution of a marriage that was determined to be irretrievably broken down. According to the petitioner (wife), the respondent (husband) had 5000 crores in assets in the United States and had paid his first wife alimony of Rs 500 crores. The Court was surprised to learn that the petitioner was requesting status equality with both the defendant and his ex-wife. In the end, the Court agreed to pay Rs. 12 crores in perpetual alimony.