No Alimony for Financially Self-Sufficient, Independent Spouse, Rules Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that a financially self-sufficient and independent spouse is not entitled to alimony, observing that maintenance under matrimonial law is meant to prevent destitution, not serve as a tool for enrichment or parity between equals.

In a detailed 37-page judgment, a Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said that “the provision under Section 25 is fundamentally equitable in nature and aims to secure financial justice between spouses, ensuring that a party lacking independent means of subsistence is not left destitute following the dissolution of marriage.” However, it emphasised that “the grant of such relief is not automatic; it is contingent upon proof of genuine financial necessity and equitable considerations.”

Court was hearing an appeal filed by a woman, a Group ‘A’ officer of the Indian Railway Traffic Service, challenging a Family Court order dissolving her marriage with her advocate husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The couple had solemnised their marriage on January 25, 2010, in Delhi according to Hindu rites. It was the second marriage for both, and no children were born from the union. The wife had earlier obtained a divorce in 2003, and the husband in 2007. Their cohabitation, however, proved short-lived as serious differences arose soon after marriage, and the husband left the matrimonial home on March 8, 2011, ending all cohabitation.

The appellant-wife approached the Court after the Family Court at Shahdara granted her husband’s divorce petition and sought permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HMA, alleging that the lower court had ignored her own claims of cruelty and had erred in denying her maintenance.

The husband alleged that he had suffered mental cruelty, claiming that the appellant routinely used “profane and degrading language” towards him and his family.

During the hearing, the appellant reiterated her need for “financial security,” saying that she was nearing retirement and needed a sufficient corpus to live comfortably post-retirement. The Court, however, noted that she did not appear opposed to the divorce itself but was primarily seeking monetary relief.

The judges observed that “when a spouse, while ostensibly resisting the dissolution of marriage, simultaneously predicates consent thereto upon payment of a substantial sum, such conduct inevitably indicates that the resistance is not anchored in affection, reconciliation, or preservation of the marital bond, but in pecuniary considerations.”

Court concluded that the Family Court’s inference that the wife’s approach bore a “clear financial dimension” was both logical and supported by evidence.

Rejecting the claim for maintenance, the Court underscored that “judicial discretion under Section 25 cannot be exercised to award alimony where the applicant is financially self-sufficient and independent.” It added that such discretion must be exercised “properly and judiciously” after considering the parties’ financial capacities and ensuring there is evidence of genuine economic vulnerability.

The Court also noted that the marriage lasted for a brief and transitory period, lacked emotional or financial interdependence, and had no children, eliminating any continuing financial obligation that might justify maintenance.

It reiterated that permanent alimony is “a measure of social justice and not a tool for enrichment or for equalising the financial status of two capable individuals.” Since the appellant was a senior government officer with a steady income and no dependents, there was no evidence of financial incapacity or hardship to warrant relief.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court upheld the Family Court’s decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and refused to grant alimony. It said the lower court had correctly appreciated the evidence and applied the law, concluding that “a spouse who is financially independent cannot claim alimony merely as a matter of right.”

Case Title: X vs Y 

Bench: Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Order Date:  17 October 2025