LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Law_Learner (Asst. Mgr.)     07 April 2015

Sc: alimony not for mere survival

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-Alimony-not-for-mere-survival/articleshow/46831173.cms

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that courts must direct a man to pay such alimony to his estranged wife so as to allow her to live life with dignity and not just make ends meet. 

"Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband," a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P C Pant said.

Increasing the maintenance amount from Rs 2,000 per month to Rs 4,000 to a retired Army personnel's estranged wife, the bench said at the time of quantifying maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, the status of the husband has to be taken into consideration. 

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Misra said, "As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance under Section 125, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar." 

The court said the husband would have to arrange for payment of maintenance to wife even if he had no job. "Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law," the bench said. 

"If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125, unless disqualified, is an absolute right," it said. 

Loss of matrimonial home and the cohabitation with husband are unfortunate developments for a woman, the bench said, adding "at this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort". 



Learning

 5 Replies

Rajesh Kumar (NA)     07 April 2015

I am really amazed at how the law works. As per HMA, below grounds are valid to file divorce by either party.

 

(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage had voluntary s*xual intercourse

with any person other than his or her spouse; or

(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with

cruelty; or

(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years

immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion;

 Now if Wife has committed cruelty, and husband files for divorce, he is yet liable to pay the wife. Same is the case for other points. So in effect we first say its their fault and then reward them for same by ensuring Crpc 125, HMA section 24 & 25. Where’s the incentive for the woman to NOT to err in the marriage? And how come these very very illogical acts are not being questioned, challlaned by PIL or other such instruments?

Law_Learner (Asst. Mgr.)     07 April 2015

I was also amazed to read the verdict. I don't think we will be ever able to get out of clutches of gender biased laws if the highest judicial authority favours one particular gender.

Law_Learner (Asst. Mgr.)     07 April 2015

I was also amazed to read the verdict. I don't think we will be ever able to get out of clutches of gender biased laws if the highest judicial authority favours one particular gender.

Law_Learner (Asst. Mgr.)     07 April 2015

I was also amazed to read the verdict. I don't think we will be ever able to get out of clutches of gender biased laws if the highest judicial authority favours one particular gender.

Maintenancevictim (Own)     08 April 2015

Lets say wife claims negligence. Then she says she need X amount as maintenance to lead the same kind of life she did in her matrimonial home. Now doesnt that become an acknwoledgement that she used to live that quality of life in matrimonial home? If yes, then how does that become negligence? In my opinion, cruelty and negligence are two different things. A maintenance claim on the basis of cruelty should be accompanied by a Divorce petition. A maintenance claim without a divorce petition cannot be construed as cruelty. The higher the claim amount in such cases contradicts negligence  i.e. lack of food, shelter etc.

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register