New Delhi [India], October 23 (HBTV): The Delhi High Court has ruled that alimony is not an automatic entitlement after divorce, particularly when the spouse seeking it is financially self-sufficient. The court clarified that the purpose of alimony is to prevent destitution, not to equalise incomes or serve as a financial advantage.
The observation came while dismissing a plea filed by a senior government officer who sought permanent alimony and compensation from her former husband, an advocate. The couple married in 2010 but separated within a year, and their marriage was dissolved on the grounds of cruelty by a family court in August 2023.
In its order dated October 17, the bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar noted that the woman, a Group ‘A’ officer in the Indian Railways Traffic Service, earns a substantial income and has no dependents. These facts, the court said, indicate that she is ‘fully capable of maintaining herself’ without any financial assistance from her former spouse.
Quoting the ruling, The Indian Express reported that the judges viewed the woman’s approach as financially motivated rather than emotional: ‘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 the preservation of the marital bond, but in pecuniary considerations.’
The bench emphasised that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers courts to grant permanent alimony and maintenance, but the provision is ‘fundamentally equitable in nature’ and contingent upon proof of ‘genuine financial necessity’. It is intended to ensure that a spouse without independent means is not left destitute after divorce, rather than to offer additional comfort to someone already capable of self-sustenance.
‘It is a settled principle that permanent alimony is intended as a measure of social justice, and not as a tool for enrichment or equalising the financial status of two capable individuals,’ the court stated. It also noted that there was no evidence of financial hardship, health issues, or significant income disparity between the parties that would justify intervention.
The bench reiterated that alimony is not guaranteed — it must be justified by demonstrated need, not claimed as a matter of right.
(Inputs from Mint)