The Supreme Court on Thursday emphasized that laws made for the welfare of women should not be misused as a tool to harass, intimidate or blackmail their husbands. The Supreme Court emphasized that alimony is not intended to balance the financial situation of the ex-spouse, but to provide the dependent woman with a reasonable standard of living.
The Supreme Court’s opinion came amid strong outrage by technician Atul Subhas, who alleged that his estranged wife and her family had demanded a monthly alimony of Rs 2 lakh, which was later increased to 3 Crores per annum.
The court ruled that based on the ex-husband’s current financial situation, the ex-husband could not have the obligation to support his ex-wife indefinitely. It also noted that Hindu marriage is considered a sacred institution and the foundation of the family and not a “commercial venture”.
“Women need to pay attention to the fact that these stringent legal provisions in their hands are legislation for their welfare and not a means to punish, threaten, overbear or blackmail their husbands,” a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mitha said.
The judges made these observations in dissolving the marriage between an estranged couple on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The husband was ordered to pay Rs 12 crore as permanent alimony to his estranged wife as full and final settlement of all her claims within one month.
The wife claimed that her estranged husband had a net worth of Rs 5,000 crore, owned several businesses and properties in the US and India, and had paid at least Rs 500 crore to the first wife at the time of separation, excluding a house in Virginia.
“Here it is not only the respondent-husband’s income that must be taken into consideration, but other factors such as the applicant’s wife’s income, her reasonable needs, her right of residence and other similar factors,” the court said.
“We have serious reservations about the tendency of one party to seek alimony or alimony as an equal measure of wealth with the other party. We often see parties emphasizing their spouse’s assets, status and income when applying for alimony or alimony and then requesting the amount can be equal to the wealth of their spouses,” the court observed.
“We want to know,” the court asked, “if after separation due to some unfortunate incident, the husband becomes a beggar, will the wife be willing to seek equal shares with her husband?”
The judge also observed instances where the wife and her family misused criminal complaints of serious crimes as a bargaining tool, primarily to force the husband and his family to meet their mainly monetary demands.
The Supreme Court also quashed the criminal case filed by the wife against her estranged husband.