Doctor-husband has capacity to pay: SC modifies K'taka HC order, raises alimony from Rs 15 lakh to Rs 50 lakh for M Tech wife

The parties got married on February 27, 2009. The respondent-husband pursued higher studies in Chandigarh, where the appellant joined him in December 2009 and stayed until July 2010. The marriage was childless.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has favoured for adopting a balanced approach between the man's capacity and the woman's needs, while granting alimony to a wife.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta raised the permanent alimony from Rs 15 lakh to Rs 50 lakh to be paid by a doctor-husband to his wife, having M Tech (Computer Science) and LLB degrees. The court noted, the husband has capacity to pay the higher amount.

The court partly allowed the woman's appeal and affirmed the decree of divorce but modified the Karnataka High Court’s order to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife would be Rs 50 lakhs as a one time settlement.

"Determination of alimony requires consideration of multiple factors. It is evident from the material on record that the respondent has the capacity to pay a higher amount than that awarded by the family court,'' the bench said.  

At the same time, the court noted, although the appellant claimed to be unemployed, she is highly qualified and has the ability to earn and sustain herself. She is not in a state of acute economic deprivation. 

"A balanced approach, weighing the respondent’s capacity and the appellant’s needs, must therefore be adopted,'' the court said.

The woman here was aggrieved with the High Court's order which dismissed her appeals and upheld the grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty, noting that while the wife expressed willingness to resume marital life, the husband was unwilling. 

The High Court observed that the husband, a doctor by profession, and the wife, a qualified engineer now practising as an advocate, were both capable individuals, and held that the Rs 15 lakh awarded as alimony by the family court was appropriate.

The parties got married on February 27, 2009. The respondent-husband pursued higher studies in Chandigarh, where the appellant joined him in December 2009 and stayed until July 2010. The appellant-woman claimed to have financially supported the respondent during this period. The marriage was childless.  

In 2011, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of mental cruelty. The appellant-woman filed objections to the petition along with a counterclaim under Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

She also filed an application under Section 24 HMA seeking maintenance. The Family Court in 2013, awarded her Rs 10,000 per month. The High Court, however, enhanced it to Rs 25,000 per month.

In 2015, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce and awarded her Rs 15 lakh as permanent alimony.  

Both the parties approached the High Court, which dismissed their appeals.

On the woman's appeal, the court issued notice only on the question of alimony. It directed both parties to file affidavits disclosing their income and liabilities to enable assessment of all relevant factors.

The respondent-husband was a doctor earning approximately Rs 1,40,000 per month from his employment. The appellant held an M Tech (Computer Science) and an LLB degree. She claimed to be presently unemployed. 

The respondent has produced his Income Tax Returns reflecting a taxable income of around Rs.1.4 lakhs per month, along with his bank statements. The appellant asserted that in the year 2010, the respondent purchased property in his own name.   

Having considered the submissions and the evidence on record, the bench found it just and equitable to enhance the permanent alimony to Rs 50 lakh as a one-time settlement. 

"This amount will reasonably secure the appellant’s future and ensure a standard of living commensurate with her circumstances,'' the bench said, on payment of the amount, all claims arising from the marriage and the present litigation would stand fully and finally settled.