Delhi High Court rules financially independent spouse cannot claim alimony, upholds family court’s divorce verdict

The bench of justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said on during a hearing on Friday that judicial discretion under Section 25 (of Hindu Marriage Act) cannot be exercised to award alimony where the applicant is financially self-sufficient and independent, reported the Hindustan Times.

“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 maintained in the 37-page ruling.

Alimony for life is intended as a form of social justice, not as a means to enrich or bring two capable individuals to parity financially.

The court issued the order while hearing the petition of a woman challenging the family court’s August 2023 ruling, giving a divorce to her husband on the grounds of cruelty and also denying alimony.

According to the report, the couple got married in January 2010 but started living separately since March 2011.

In 2011, the man filed for a divorce, accusing the woman of cruelty during their marriage by using abusive and insulting language towards him and his family.

The family court in 2023 granted the husband a divorce and denied alimony.

The court added that the woman agreed to the dissolution of the marriage, provided the man paid Rs 50 lakh as alimony.

In her appeal to the high court, she argued that she had been the victim in the marriage and not her husband, who had 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, said the HT report.

The woman stated that she was not opposed to the divorce, but with her retirement approaching, she needed the alimony to secure a comfortable life thereafter.

The man argued that the woman’s objection to the divorce was not an effort to restore marital harmony, but rather a ploy to secure the alimony.

The high court upheld the family court's order, concluding that the woman’s degrading language against her husband and filthy epithets against his mother amounted to cruelty in marriage, according to the report.

The court also denied her alimony, noting that she consented to end the marriage after receiving money, indicated that her decision was not influenced by affection or a desire for reconciliation, but by financial considerations, the report noted.

“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, according to the report.