Supreme Court Revises Permanent Alimony to Rs. 50,000 per Month, Orders 5% Biennial Increase

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal confined to the question of enhancement of permanent alimony awarded by the High Court of Calcutta. The appeal arose from a decree of divorce granted to the husband by the High Court, which had directed permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000 per month to the wife with a 5% increase every three years; the wife challenged only the quantum of maintenance before this Court.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the quantum of permanent alimony. It held that the High Court’s figure required revision in light of the respondent-husband’s income and the appellant-wife’s continued reliance on maintenance as her sole means of support. The Court stated that the wife was "entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The respondent-husband’s income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount." The Court concluded that "a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable" and fixed that as the permanent alimony, subject to a 5% enhancement every two years. The Court declined to direct further mandatory support for the son, now aged 26, while noting the respondent could "voluntarily assist" with educational or other reasonable expenses and that the son's inheritance rights remained unaffected.

Background The parties married on June 18, 1997, and a son was born in 1998. In July 2008 the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty. The appellant-wife sought interim maintenance in the matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and later filed Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance. The Trial Court awarded interim maintenance and, by order dated January 10, 2016, dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that cruelty was not proved. The respondent appealed to the Calcutta High Court, which, by order dated June 25, 2019, allowed the appeal, granted a decree of divorce on grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown, directed redemption and transfer of the flat occupied by the wife, permitted the wife and son to continue residing there, and awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000 per month with a 5% increase every three years, along with certain educational expenses. The wife challenged only the quantum of alimony before this Court. This Court issued notice limited to enhancement on February 20, 2023, and by interim order dated November 7, 2023, increased interim maintenance to Rs. 75,000 per month in the absence of the husband's representation; the husband later appeared and sought vacation of that interim order. After hearing the parties and examining disclosed income, salary slips and bank statements, the Supreme Court found the husband capable of paying a higher amount and revised the permanent alimony to Rs. 50,000 per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years. The appeal was allowed to that extent and the connected contempt petition was disposed of accordingly. Pending applications stood disposed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 789 (Civil Appeal No. 10209 of 2024) Case Title: Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment