SC Increases Post-Divorce Support, States Education And Family Support Don’t End Financial Responsibility

The Supreme Court has held that a husband’s obligation to pay maintenance to his ex-wife after divorce does not end merely because she is educated or has parental support. The ruling came while allowing an appeal filed by a divorced woman against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had declined to interfere with a Family Court’s decision fixing permanent maintenance at Rs 15,000 per month.

Wife Seeks Increased Maintenance on Basis of Income Gap

The woman submitted before the Supreme Court that the existing maintenance did not meet her basic living expenses. She pointed out to the severe gap between her maintenance amount and the earning capability of her husband. She said in her plea that the amount of maintenance decided by the court did not consider inflation or the increasing cost of housing, food and healthcare.

She sought improvement in maintenance to achieve financial stability after the divorce as the figure fixed earlier had lost its value over the years.

Husband Decisive Against Increase on Financial Grounds

The respondent, husband, was opposed to the plea for enhancement. He reasoned that the wife was well educated and able to make a living on her own. He further said that she had sufficient parental support that decreased her need for financial support from him.

The husband also pleaded financial inability. He cited liabilities resulting from a second marriage, which too had broken down. According to him, these financial commitments were limiting his ability to pay a higher amount as maintenance.

Court Examines Ability to Pay and Cost of Living

The Supreme Court examined the income levels, expenditure patterns, and economic conditions prevailing at the time in assessing the competing claims. The Bench noted that the husband’s income was considerably higher than the amount of maintenance fixed by the Family Court.

It also took note of inflation over the past decade and the associated increase in day-to-day expenses. The court said maintenance amounts must be kept realistic and be based on current costs rather than be frozen in outdated amounts.

Education Not an Indicator of Financial Sufficiency

While addressing the argument that the wife was educated and capable of earning, the Supreme Court held that educational qualifications alone cannot be treated as proof of financial sufficiency. The Bench referred to earlier rulings which said that maintenance decisions needed to be based on actual income and capacity to pay and not assumptions about employability. 

The Court reiterated that income and financial position of the paying spouse is one of the important factors that has to be considered while deciding on maintenance, particularly if there is a wide disparity in the earning capacity of the two persons.

Second Marriage Liabilities Rejected

The Supreme Court rejected the husband’s plea to reduce the maintenance payable to the former wife on the grounds that financial obligations arising from a second marriage have to be deducted. It observed that subsequent personal financial commitments cannot override the obligations fixed under the law.

The income and adequacy of the amount already awarded was the main focus of the bench, not his later financial decisions.

Maintenance Enhanced 

After taking into consideration several factors, such as income, inflation and general financial situation, the Court decided that the amount of Rs 15,000 per month was not sufficient. It strengthened the permanent alimony to be paid to the wife to Rs 30,000 a month.

The Court also ordered that the revised amount be paid regularly by the respondent husband in consideration of present economic conditions and proportionately to his income.