Supreme Court Enhances Permanent Alimony in Long-Standing Matrimonial Dispute

The case stems from a tumultuous marital relationship that began with the couple’s marriage on June 18, 1997. A son was born to them on August 5, 1998. The breakdown of their relationship led to protracted legal battles over nearly two decades, with multiple proceedings under various laws, including the Special Marriage Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Timeline of Legal Proceedings

In July 2008, Raja Sadhukhan, the respondent-husband, filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty allegedly inflicted by his wife. Subsequently, Rakhi Sadhukhan filed a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking interim maintenance for herself and their minor son.

The Trial Court, in its 2010 order, granted interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month and ₹10,000 for litigation expenses. Further, in a separate proceeding under Section 125 CrPC, the court directed the husband to pay ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹6,000 to the son, along with ₹5,000 in litigation costs.

In January 2016, the Trial Court dismissed the husband's divorce petition, finding that he had failed to substantiate the allegations of cruelty. Dissatisfied, he approached the Calcutta High Court, which, in 2019, overturned the Trial Court’s decision and granted a decree of divorce based on mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

High Court Ruling

The High Court’s judgment granted the following reliefs to Rakhi Sadhukhan:

Permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month with a 5% increase every three years.

Residence rights in a flat to be transferred to her name by the respondent.

Educational expenses and ₹5,000 per month for their son’s private tuition.

The appellant-wife challenged the quantum of permanent alimony before the Supreme Court, asserting that the amount was originally intended as interim relief and did not reflect the couple’s prior standard of living. She claimed that the respondent's income was significantly higher—approximately ₹4,00,000 per month—than reflected in the High Court’s judgment.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

The apex court took cognizance of the disparity between the respondent-husband’s current earnings and the awarded maintenance. While the respondent claimed a net monthly income of ₹1,64,039 and detailed personal expenses of ₹1,72,088, the court noted that he had previously drawn an annual salary of ₹21.9 lakhs during his tenure at the Taj Hotel and was now employed at the Institute of Hotel Management in Kolkata.

The Court observed that the appellant-wife, who remained unmarried and financially dependent on maintenance, was entitled to support that reflected her marital standard of living. The rising cost of living and the absence of any other income source for her warranted a revision.

In a strongly worded judgment, the bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, ruled:

“In our considered opinion, a sum of ₹50,000 per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years.”

On the issue of the now 26-year-old son, the court declined to impose any mandatory financial obligation on the respondent but permitted voluntary contributions and clarified that the son’s inheritance rights remained intact.

Interim Relief and Final Order

During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court had on November 7, 2023, passed an interim order enhancing maintenance to ₹75,000 per month due to the respondent's absence from proceedings despite service of notice. The respondent later appeared and sought to vacate that interim relief.

However, the Court today settled on a final amount of ₹50,000 per month, observing that while the interim amount served an immediate purpose, a balanced and sustainable long-term figure was more appropriate.

The Court concluded:

“The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be ₹50,000 per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years.”

The accompanying contempt petition and all other pending applications were also disposed of.

Broader Implications

This ruling is likely to resonate in similar matrimonial disputes where interim relief becomes final without reassessment or where one party continues to suffer due to financial disparity despite a legal separation. The judgment also reaffirms the judiciary's stance on maintaining the dignity and standard of living of spouses post-divorce, especially in cases involving long-term marriages and dependent spouses.