Divorce, Maintenance and Alimony

Maintenance or permanent alimony should not be penal but should be for the purposes of ensuring a decent living standard for the wife. (Para 32) Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage can't be used to the advantage of the party responsible for collapse of marriage. Prabhavathi @ Prabhamani v. Lakshmeesha M.C., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Supreme Court urges advocates not to file baseless petitions, flags outrageous averments in family law cases. K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 757

Wife is entitled to the same standard of living during the divorce proceedings as what she enjoyed during the marriage. Dr. Rajiv Verghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 902

The amount of permanent alimony should not penalize the husband but should be made with the aim of ensuring a decent standard of living for the wife. Following factors require due weightage while deciding the permanent alimony amount: i. Status of the parties, social and financial. ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children. iii. Parties' individual qualifications and employment statuses. iv. Independent income or assets owned by the applicant. v. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home. vi. Any employment sacrifices made for the family responsibilities. vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife. viii. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities. The aforesaid factors do not lay down a strait jacket formula but act as a guideline while deciding permanent alimony. Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 969

S.125 CrPC – SARFAESI – IBC – Maintenance rights of a man's wife and children have precedence over the rights of creditors under recovery proceedings, right to maintenance is equivalent to a fundamental right and shall have an overriding effect over statutory rights of creditors, etc. under business laws. Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 977

Reservations Over Tendency In Matrimonial Proceedings To Seek Maintenance Or Alimony As An Equalisation Of Wealth With The Other Party – Divorced wife cannot seek permanent alimony just to attain equal wealth status with the ex-husband. While the wife is entitled to be maintained, as far as possible, to the same standards of life to which she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home, the husband can't be expected to maintain her as per his present status in life. Merely because the husband has moved on and attained better financial status after separation, the divorced wife cannot seek a higher alimony. Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1021

Maintenance can be granted despite the financial independence of a party if it is necessary to secure dignity, social standing, and financial stability post-divorce, especially in cases where the marriage has subsisted for a long period. Amutha v. AR Subramanian, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

Prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcile, can be a relevant factor to decide matrimonial disputes, when marriage has become a mere legal formality devoid of mutual trust and companionship. Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship, and shared experiences. When these essential elements are missing for an extended period, the marital bond becomes a mere legal formality devoid of any substance. Amutha v. AR Subramanian, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Section 6 - Stridhan is the exclusive property of the woman, and her father cannot claim recovery of Stridhan from in-laws without explicit authorisation from her. Mulakala Malleshwara Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Section 6 - The Supreme Court reiterated that it cannot be assumed that dowry and traditional presents given at the time of marriage are entrusted to the parents-in-law of the bride and would attract the ingredients of Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides that any dowry received by a person other than the woman in connection with her marriage must be transferred to her within the specified period. It further states that such dowry, until transferred, is to be held in trust for the benefit of the woman. Failure to transfer is punishable with imprisonment and/or fine. (Para 15, Referred : Bobbili Ramakrishna Raja Yadad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2016) 3 SCC 309). Mulakala Malleshwara Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Section 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 406 - Allegations that the appellants, former in-laws of the complainant's daughter, had not returned the “stridhan” (gifts, including gold ornaments) given at the time of marriage. Key facts include the unsuccessful marriage of the complainant's daughter, her divorce in the U.S. in 2016, and subsequent remarriage in 2018. The complaint, filed in 2021, alleged the failure of the appellants to return the “stridhan.” The Supreme Court found no evidence supporting the claim of “stridhan” possession by the appellants, emphasizing that the complainant had no locus standi to initiate proceedings on behalf of his daughter without her express authorization. The Court reiterated established jurisprudence on the absolute ownership of “stridhan” by a married woman and highlighted that delay in filing the FIR raised questions about the complainant's motives. The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings were quashed on the grounds of insufficient evidence, unexplained delay, and abuse of the legal process. Mulakala Malleshwara Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 621