29 May 2025 Alimony in India >> Divorce Laws in India   |   Divorce Law >> Family Law  

In a recent decision of Rakhi Sadhukhan v/s Raja Sadhukhan, the Supreme Court of India increased the permanent alimony awarded to an appellant-wife in a divorce case, modifying an earlier order from the Calcutta High Court. The ruling, delivered on May 30, 2025, raised the monthly alimony from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 50,000, with a 5% increase every two years.

The case involved a couple who married in 1997 and had a son in 1998. The respondent-husband initiated divorce proceedings in 2008, citing cruelty by the wife. Throughout the prolonged legal battle, various interim maintenance orders were passed in favor of the wife and son.

In 2016, the Trial Court dismissed the husband's divorce suit, finding insufficient evidence of cruelty. However, the Calcutta High Court, in 2019, overturned this decision, granting a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The High Court also stipulated that the husband redeem the mortgage on the flat where the wife resided and transfer its title to her, allow her and their son to continue living there, and pay Rs. 20,000 per month as permanent alimony, with a 5% increase every three years.

Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony, the wife appealed to the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court temporarily enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 75,000 per month from November 1, 2023, due to the husband's initial non-representation.

The wife argued that the Rs. 20,000 granted by the High Court was merely an interim amount and not reflective of the husband's current income, which she claimed was around Rs. 4,00,000 per month. She contended that the alimony should align with the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.

The husband, in response, presented evidence showing his net monthly income to be Rs. 1,64,039 from his employment at the Institute of Hotel Management. He also stated his monthly expenses, remarriage, and dependent family, arguing that their 26-year-old son was no longer financially dependent.

After reviewing the submissions and financial disclosures, the Supreme Court concluded that the husband was capable of paying a higher amount. Recognizing the wife's unmarried status, independent living, and the impact of inflation, the Court deemed Rs. 50,000 per month to be a "just, fair and reasonable" amount to ensure her financial stability.

The Court, however, declined to order mandatory financial support for the 26-year-old son, leaving it to the husband's discretion for voluntary assistance with educational or other reasonable expenses. The son's inheritance rights remain unaffected.

This ruling underscores the judiciary's proactive approach in ensuring fair and adequate financial support for spouses post-divorce, considering evolving economic realities and the financial capacity of the parties involved.