The court fixed a one-time settlement amount of Rs 2 crore as a fair and equitable amount for permanent maintenance, which the husband has to pay within four months to cover all pending and future claims. (Getty)
The top court fixed Rs 2 crore as permanent maintenance, saying the demand was exceptionally high but at the same time, the offer was inadequate in the broader context of maintenance considerations.
The Supreme Court has stated that the award of maintenance or permanent alimony should not be a criminal proceeding but should serve to ensure a reasonable standard of living for the wife.
The court made these observations while dissolving the marriage of a couple by directing the husband to make a lump sum payment of Rs 20 million to his wife.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra also observed that the parties had lived together for less than a year after the marriage and have been living separately for the last nine years.
“Since both the parties have stated that they have no intention of continuing their marriage as husband and wife, we are of the opinion that while the interest of the appellant who is to receive compensation needs to be protected by a one-off settlement, this is an appropriate case to exercise the discretionary powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and dissolve the marriage between the parties,” the court observed.
The ruling relied on a decision of a Constitutional Court in Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan (2022) in which the Supreme Court held that under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, it has discretionary power to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, exercising its discretion prudently on the basis of the relevant facts and assessment of objective criteria and factors.
In the present case, the Court found that the long-term separation of the parties, the lengthy and repeated court proceedings leading to a decision, and several failed attempts at reconciliation were evidence that the parties' marriage was completely broken.
Further, reference was made to ‘Rajnesh Vs Neha and Another’ (2021) where a two-judge bench explained the general criteria and factors to be considered while determining the quantum of maintenance and laid down a comprehensive framework for determining the quantum of maintenance in matrimonial disputes with a special focus on permanent maintenance.
In the instant case, the defendant husband was working as a Vice President of a reputed bank and was allegedly earning a gross monthly salary of over Rs. 800,000 and a net salary of over Rs. 500,000 per month after deductions.
The court was informed that he had dependent parents living in the United States of America but also had a cumulative annual income of over Rs 28 lakh. He claimed that he was responsible for their medical expenses and stay when they visit India. He also stated that he had an aunt for whom he bore around Rs 55,000 in medical expenses every month.
On the other hand, the wife claimed that her husband owned matrimonial property in Pune and immovable property in New Jersey in the USA.
She further stated that she earned a monthly salary of Rs 139,000 as a human resource manager in a private company, but her expenses were around Rs 400,000 per month, in addition to Rs 75,000 for her minor daughter.
The husband further informed the court that the complainant’s daughter was from her previous marriage and in that case she had received Rs 40 lakh as permanent maintenance for her and her daughter’s maintenance.
After hearing the arguments, the Court stated: “The Court considers that the applicant's claim is exceptionally high, but at the same time the amount offered by the defendant is insufficient in the broader context of maintenance payments.”
The Court, therefore, fixed a one-time settlement amount of Rs. 2 crore as a fair and equitable amount of permanent maintenance to be paid by the husband within four months to cover all outstanding and future demands, taking into account all the circumstances, social and financial status of the parties, their present occupations and future prospects, standard of living and their obligations, liabilities and other expenses.
Aishwarya IyerAishwarya Iyer, legal correspondent at Lawbeat, covers the Supreme Court, and her meticulous understanding of complex judgments and orders results in impressive…Read more
Comments are closed.