NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that a spouse who is financially self-sufficient and independent is not entitled to alimony, observing that the purpose of permanent alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act is to provide financial support to a dependent partner — not to equalise the incomes of two capable individuals.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that “judicial discretion under Section 25 [of Hindu Marriage Act (HMA)] cannot be exercised to award alimony where the applicant is financially self-sufficient and independent.” The court added that such discretion must be exercised “properly and judiciously, based on the record, the relative financial capacities of the parties, and the absence of any material demonstrating economic vulnerability on the part of the Appellant.”
The bench was hearing an appeal by a woman challenging a family court order that granted divorce to her husband on grounds of cruelty and denied her claim for permanent alimony. Both parties had been previously divorced before marrying in January 2010. The marriage lasted only 14 months before the separation.
The husband, a practising advocate, accused his wife, a Group A Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS) officer, of mental and physical cruelty, including the use of abusive language, humiliating messages, denial of conjugal rights, and public insults. The wife denied these claims and counter-alleged cruelty by her husband.
The family court, after considering evidence, found that the wife had demanded Rs 50 lakh as a financial settlement for agreeing to the dissolution of the marriage, a fact she reportedly admitted in her affidavit and during cross-examination. The court viewed this demand as indicative of a financial motive and rejected her alimony plea.
The High Court observed: “The inference drawn by the learned family court that the Appellant’s approach bore a clear financial dimension cannot be said to be unfounded or unreasonable; rather, it was a logical conclusion based on the evidence before it.”
The court also took note of the wife’s “degrading language” towards her husband and his mother, including imputations of illegitimacy, calling it conduct amounting to “grave mental agony.”
Ultimately, the bench denied her plea for alimony, observing: “The short duration of cohabitation, the absence of children, the Appellant’s substantial and independent income, and the lack of credible evidence of financial necessity cumulatively negate any claim for permanent alimony.”