Unmarried & Financially Dependent Wife Entitled To Maintenance Reflecting Marital Standard Of Living: Supreme Court

The Court held that the earlier amount awarded by the Calcutta High Court was insufficient given the respondent-husband’s income and the standard of living maintained during the marriage.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal filed by the appellant-wife challenging the quantum of alimony awarded by the Calcutta High Court in its order dated June 25, 2019.

The High Court had allowed the husband’s appeal, granted a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and directed payment of Rs. 20,000 per month to the wife, with a 5% increment every three years, along with other reliefs.

The couple had married in 1997 and have a son born in 1998. Matrimonial disputes began in 2008, leading to a series of legal proceedings under the Special Marriage Act, Hindu Marriage Act, and Section 125 of the CrPC. The trial court had initially dismissed the husband’s divorce petition in 2016, which was later overturned by the High Court.

During the proceedings, the wife argued that the Rs. 20,000 awarded was initially interim maintenance and not reflective of her financial needs, especially as the husband was earning nearly Rs. 4 lakhs a month at one point. The respondent-husband countered by claiming his current monthly income is Rs. 1.64 lakhs and cited responsibilities towards his new family and aged parents.

The Court, however, found that the wife, who remained unmarried and financially dependent on maintenance, deserved a higher sum in light of inflation and her right to a dignified standard of living. "The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, 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. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount," the Court observed.  

“A sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife,” the Court held, noting that the respondent’s past and present earnings indicate sufficient capacity to pay.

The Court also noted that the 26-year-old son is no longer financially dependent and declined to issue further directions regarding his support, though it left the door open for voluntary assistance by the father. The son’s right to inheritance, the Court clarified, remains unaffected.

With this, the Court modified the High Court's order and disposed of related pending applications and the contempt petition filed for non-compliance with the interim maintenance order.