No alimony to self-sufficient spouse: Delhi HC

The order was passed when the court was dealing with a woman’s petition challenging the family court’s ruling granting divorce to her husband and also denying alimony.

The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered that alimony can’t be granted to a spouse who is financially self-sufficient and independent.

(Shutterstock)

“Judicial discretion under Section 25 (of Hindu Marriage Act) cannot be exercised to award alimony where the applicant is financially self-sufficient and independent, and such discretion must be exercised properly and judiciously, based on the record, the relative financial capacities of the parties, and the absence of any material demonstrating economic vulnerability on the part of the Appellant (wife),” the bench of justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar maintained in the 37-page ruling.

The court emphasised that permanent alimony is intended as a form of social justice, not as a tool to enrich or equalise the financial status of two capable individuals.

The order was passed when the court was dealing with a woman’s petition challenging the family court’s August 2023 ruling granting divorce to her husband on the ground of cruelty and also denying alimony.

The couple purportedly got married in January 2010 but had been living separately since March 2011. The man, in 2011, filed for divorce, alleging that the woman subjected him to cruelty throughout the marriage by using profane and degrading language towards him and his family. The family court in 2023 granted him a divorce and denied alimony. The court noted that the wife had expressed no objection to the dissolution of the marriage, provided he paid ₹50 lakh as alimony.

The woman in her petition before the high court had argued that her husband had instead subjected her to cruelty by making false and scandalous complaints to her superior officers in the Indian Railways, addressed representations to the President of India and had instituted false proceedings against her.

She stated that she was not opposed to the divorce but sought financial security through alimony, arguing that she was approaching retirement and would require funds to maintain a comfortable life thereafter.

The man argued that his wife’s opposition to the divorce was not a genuine effort to restore marital harmony, but rather a strategic move aimed at securing a financial settlement.

Consequently, the court in its verdict upheld the family court’s order concluding that the woman’s action of using degrading language against her husband and filthy epithets for his mother amounted to mental cruelty.

The bench further denied her alimony, observing that her initial resistance to the dissolution of marriage, followed by consent after receiving a substantial sum, suggested that her actions were driven not by affection or a desire for reconciliation, but by financial considerations.

“The inference drawn by the learned family court that the appellant’s approach bore a clear financial dimension cannot be said to be unfounded or unreasonable; rather, it was a logical conclusion based on the evidence,” the court maintained.