Delhi High Court Rules Against Alimony for Self-Sufficient Spouse

Court's Ruling on Alimony

On Friday, the Delhi High Court determined that alimony should not be granted to a spouse who is financially independent.

A bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld a family court's ruling from August 2023, which denied permanent alimony to a woman working as a senior officer in the Indian Railways Traffic Service.

The court also supported the family court's decision to grant her husband, a lawyer, a divorce on the basis of cruelty.

In its ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that permanent alimony serves as a means of social justice rather than a mechanism for financial enrichment or equalizing the economic status of two capable individuals.

The court highlighted that anyone seeking alimony must prove a genuine need for financial assistance, and that judicial discretion should be applied based on evidence and the specific circumstances of each case.

The couple, both previously divorced, married in January 2010 but separated after just 14 months. The husband sought divorce, citing mental and physical cruelty, which included abusive language, humiliating text messages, and denial of conjugal rights.

The wife refuted these claims and accused him of cruelty as well, alleging that he married her to exploit her position as a senior officer in the Indian Railways to secure his own role as a panel lawyer.

However, the family court granted the divorce in August 2023, concluding that the wife had used derogatory language against her husband and his mother, including claims that he was an illegitimate child, which constituted mental cruelty.

The court also noted that the wife had requested Rs 50 lakhs as a financial settlement in exchange for agreeing to the divorce, as indicated in her affidavit and confirmed during cross-examination. This demand was dismissed by the court, which interpreted it as a sign that her willingness to end the marriage was driven by financial motives rather than a genuine desire for reconciliation.

On Friday, the High Court upheld these conclusions, stating that resistance to divorce contingent on receiving a large sum of money indicated financial rather than emotional or marital interests.

“The Family Court's inference that the Appellant's actions had a clear financial aspect is neither unfounded nor unreasonable; it is a logical deduction based on the evidence presented,” the High Court remarked.