The Supreme Court has said that the award of maintenance or permanent alimony should not be penal but for the purposes of ensuring a decent living standard for the wife.
The court made the observations while dissolving the marriage of a couple by directing the husband to pay Rs 2 crore as one-time settlement to the wife.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra also noted the parties cohabited after marriage for less than a year and have been living separately since the last nine years.
“Since both the parties said they have no intention of continuing their union as husband and wife. Therefore, we are of the opinion that while the interest of the appellant-wife to be compensated needs to be protected through a one-time settlement, this is a fit case to exercise the discretionary powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to dissolve the marriage between the parties,” the court observed.
Reliance was placed upon a Constitution bench decision in “Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan” (2022) wherein the apex court noted that it has the discretionary power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage while exercising the discretion cautiously on the basis of the factual matrix in each case, evaluated on objective criteria and factors.
In the case at hand, the bench noted long-standing separation between the parties, prolonged and multiple litigations pending adjudication, and several failed attempts at reconciliation were evidence of the fact that the marriage between the parties had completely broken down.
Reference was also made to “Rajnesh Vs Neha and Another” (2021) in which a two-judge bench elaborated upon the broad criteria and the factors to be considered for determining the quantum of maintenance and laid down a comprehensive framework for determining the quantum of maintenance in matrimonial disputes, particularly focusing on permanent alimony.
In the instant case, the respondent-husband was working as the Vice President in a reputed bank and was stated to be earning a gross monthly salary of around over Rs 8 lakh and more than Rs 5 lakh per month as net salary after deductions.
The court was told he had dependant parents who resided in the United States of America, but they also have a cumulative annual income of over Rs 28 lakh. He claimed he is responsible for their medical expenses and stay when they are visiting India. He also stated that he has a dependant aunt with around Rs 55,000 medical expenses monthly being borne by him for her.
On the other hand, the wife claimed the husband owned matrimonial property in Pune and immovable property in New Jersey in USA.
She also submitted she earned as Rs 1.39 lakh as monthly salary as head of human resources in a private company but claimed her expenses to be around Rs 4 lakh per month, besides Rs 75,000 for her minor daughter.
The court was also told by the husband that the appellant’s daughter was from her previous marriage and she had received Rs 40 lakh as permanent alimony in that case towards the maintenance of her and the daughter.
After hearing the arguments, the bench said, “This court is of the opinion that the demand made by the appellant is exceptionally high but, at the same time, the amount offered by the respondent is insufficient in the broader rubric of maintenance considerations.”
The court thus fixed one-time settlement amount of Rs 2 crore as fair and balanced for permanent alimony to be paid by the husband within four months to cover all pending and future claims, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the social and financial status of the parties, their current employments as well as future prospects, standards of living, and their obligations, liabilities, and other expenses.
Comments
0 comment