Maintenance Must Reflect Lifestyle Enjoyed During Marriage”: Supreme Court Enhances Alimony to ₹50,000 for Unmarried Wife Post-Divorce

"Considering Inflation and Complete Dependency, ₹50,000 per Month is Just, Fair and Reasonable": Supreme Court of India delivered a noteworthy judgment, where it significantly enhanced the quantum of permanent alimony awarded to an estranged wife. The Court set aside the High Court’s award of ₹20,000 per month and ruled that the appellant-wife, who remained unmarried and financially dependent, was entitled to a more realistic figure aligned with the standard of living she enjoyed during her marriage. The apex court enhanced the amount to ₹50,000 per month, with a 5% increase every two years, holding that, “Maintenance must reflect lifestyle enjoyed during marriage and ensure financial stability.”

The appellant-wife, Rakhi Sadhukhan, and respondent-husband, Raja Sadhukhan, were married in June 1997. A son was born to them in 1998. The husband filed for divorce in 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, alleging cruelty. In response, the wife initiated proceedings for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and subsequently under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

The Trial Court initially awarded her ₹8,000 per month in 2010. Over time, this amount was revised and reviewed, but the High Court ultimately granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage in 2019, awarding ₹20,000 per month as permanent alimony to the appellant. The flat where she resided was ordered to be transferred to her name, and the respondent was directed to bear educational and tuition expenses of their son. Dissatisfied with the meagre quantum of alimony, the wife approached the Supreme Court seeking enhancement.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether ₹20,000 per month constituted fair and adequate permanent alimony in light of the respondent’s financial capacity and the appellant’s needs and dependency.

The appellant contended that ₹20,000 was initially granted as interim maintenance and was never meant to be treated as final alimony. She urged that the respondent’s current monthly income was close to ₹4,00,000 and that she had no other source of income or support.

The respondent-husband, on the other hand, argued that his net monthly income was ₹1,64,039 and that he had remarried and was supporting a new family and aged parents. He provided salary slips and tax documents in support of his claims. He also pointed out that their son was now 26 years old and not financially dependent.

In its assessment, the Court observed that the wife’s claim was not only reasonable but supported by the overarching purpose of matrimonial maintenance. Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the bench, observed:

“The appellant-wife… is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future.”

The Court emphasized that the respondent’s own disclosures demonstrated a capacity to pay significantly more than what was originally awarded by the High Court. Noting the disparity between his income and the maintenance fixed, the bench held:

“The quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision… The inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment.”

The Court firmly held that the award of ₹20,000 per month was wholly inadequate in the circumstances of the case. While the High Court had considered the respondent’s earlier income of ₹69,000 per month, the apex court noted that the current financial disclosures presented a very different picture. The Court stated:

“A sum of ₹50,000 per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife.”

The amount was made subject to an automatic enhancement of 5% every two years, acknowledging the long-term need for adjustment due to inflation and evolving financial requirements.

On the issue of the adult son’s support, the Court clarified:

“We are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support… However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him.”

It further clarified that the son’s right to inheritance remained unaffected and any property claims could be pursued under ordinary civil law.

In allowing the appeal and modifying the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that matrimonial maintenance must not be illusory but meaningful, aligned with both the financial status of the husband and the wife’s lifestyle during marriage. The judgment sends a clear message that courts must not adopt a perfunctory approach when deciding permanent alimony and must take into account contemporary socio-economic realities.

“Considering inflation and complete dependence, ₹50,000 per month is just, fair and reasonable,” the Court concluded.

Accordingly, the contempt petition filed due to non-compliance with the earlier interim order was also disposed of.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2025