Although She Is Not in Acute Hardship, She Deserves a Dignified Life – Supreme Court Enhances Alimony to ₹50 Lakhs Despite Upholding Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty

“Determination of Alimony Must Balance Capacity to Pay and Dignity of the Recipient” – In a significant matrimonial ruling Supreme Court of India in the case of XXX Vs XXX, upheld the decree of divorce granted under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of mental cruelty. While affirming the High Court's refusal to interfere with the divorce, the Court partly allowed the appeal by the wife, enhancing the permanent alimony from ₹15 lakhs to ₹50 lakhs as a one-time full and final settlement.

“The appellant may not be in a state of acute economic deprivation, but she is entitled to a standard of living commensurate with her qualifications and dignity,” observed the Court, setting a precedent in ensuring post-divorce financial justice grounded in balance and fairness.

The parties were married on February 27, 2009. The appellant-wife, an M.Tech graduate later qualified in law, had joined her husband in Chandigarh where he was pursuing higher studies. The respondent-husband, a medical professional, later filed a petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging mental cruelty.

The appellant contested the petition and filed a counterclaim for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 23(1)(a), asserting her willingness to resume marital life.

During the pendency of the proceedings, she filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for interim maintenance. The Family Court awarded ₹10,000/month, later enhanced to ₹25,000/month by the Karnataka High Court. Ultimately, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce in 2015 and directed the respondent to pay ₹15 lakhs as permanent alimony. The High Court upheld this order.

The appellant approached the Supreme Court primarily to challenge the quantum of alimony, as notice was issued only on this limited question.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta affirmed the divorce decree, noting: “The respondent remained unwilling to resume marital life despite the appellant’s willingness... there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Family Court and High Court.” [Para 3.7]

With respect to alimony, the Court observed that multiple factors must be considered, including the earning capacity of the respondent, the qualifications and economic prospects of the appellant, and the standard of living previously enjoyed.

The respondent, a doctor earning approximately ₹1.4 lakhs per month, had also acquired property in his own name. The appellant, on the other hand, though claiming to be unemployed, held degrees in M.Tech (Computer Science) and LL.B. The Court found that both parties were capable, but the financial and social disparity post-divorce could not be ignored.

“Although the appellant claims to be unemployed, she is highly qualified and has the ability to earn and sustain herself. She is not in a state of acute economic deprivation.” [Para 9]

However, the Court emphasized that economic survival is not the only consideration. The right to dignity post-divorce was equally critical.

“A balanced approach, weighing the respondent’s capacity and the appellant’s needs, must be adopted… A just, fair, and reasonable one-time settlement would be ₹50,00,000/- to secure the appellant’s financial future.” [Paras 9–10]

The Court concluded that the ₹15 lakh alimony was inadequate considering the respondent’s earning capacity and standard of living, and that the appellant must not be left in a position where she compromises on dignity.

Accordingly, the permanent alimony was enhanced to ₹50,00,000, to be paid as one-time settlement in five equal monthly instalments of ₹10,00,000 each between September 30, 2025, and January 31, 2026.

The Court directed:

“The appellant shall furnish her bank account details to the respondent for the above payments.” [Para 12]

All claims arising out of the marriage and the litigation were deemed settled by this payment.

The Supreme Court's judgment in M.V. Leelavathi vs. Dr. C.R. Swamy reflects a nuanced and progressive approach to matrimonial jurisprudence—one that recognizes not just the financial capability of spouses, but also the right to dignity and independent living after divorce.

While affirming the dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty, the Court’s enhancement of alimony underscores a critical shift toward equitable financial relief—even when the recipient is not in penury.

“This amount will reasonably secure the appellant’s future and ensure a standard of living commensurate with her circumstances.” [Para 10]

The judgment sets a persuasive precedent: alimony is not merely compensation—it is a tool of ensuring equity, dignity, and closure.

Date of Decision: August 18, 2025