A Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not a commercial venture, the Supreme Court held on Thursday, highlighting concerns over the misuse of penal laws in matrimonial disputes and clarifying that alimony cannot be sought as a means to equalise wealth between spouses, even if the husband has achieved financial success post-separation.
In a comprehensive judgment, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal laid down key principles concerning the misuse of penal laws and the determination of alimony, as it dissolved a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
“A Hindu marriage is a sacrament and is considered to be a sacred institution as a foundation for a family, and not a commercial venture,” declared the judgment authored by justice Nagarathna. It underscored the spiritual and traditional nature of Hindu marriages, stressing that they are intended to form the bedrock of family life and societal harmony rather than serving as platforms for monetary or material disputes.
The judgment arose from a marital dispute between a couple married in July 2021. The husband, a US-based IT consultant, sought a divorce citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The wife opposed the divorce and demanded alimony equal to the settlement amount received by the husband’s first wife – at least ₹500 crore.
On Thursday, the court dissolved the union and directed the husband to pay ₹12 crore as permanent alimony to the wife.
Addressing the contentious issue of alimony, the bench rejected the notion that maintenance should serve as a means of equalizing wealth between spouses. “We have serious reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalization of wealth with the other party,” the judgment said.
The court clarified that maintenance laws are meant to provide support to a dependent spouse, ensuring dignity and sufficiency in their standard of living, but not as a lifelong entitlement pegged to the other spouse’s success.
“It cannot be expected of the husband to maintain (his wife) as per his present status all his life. If the husband has moved ahead and is fortunately doing better in life post-separation, then to ask him to always maintain the status of the wife as per his own changing status would be putting a burden on his personal progress,” the bench held.
The court also posed a rhetorical question: “Would the wife be willing to seek an equalization of wealth with the husband if, due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?”
While acknowledging that maintenance amounts may be revised due to inflation, illness, or other circumstances, the bench stressed that demands for alimony should not become tools of extortion.
The court lamented how, in some cases, the sacred institution of marriage is undermined by legal misuse by indiscriminately invoking charges of cruelty, rape, sodomy and criminal intimidation. The invocation of these sections as a “combined package”, the court regretted, has become a routine practice in matrimonial disputes.
It highlighted that criminal complaints are often used as “a platform for negotiation and as a mechanism or tool to get the husband and his family to comply with demands, which are mostly monetary in nature”.
Mincing no words, justice Nagarathna warned: “The women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer, or extort from their husbands.”
The bench expressed its disapproval of the wife’s contradictory positions, stating: “On one hand, she has stated that she has been a dutiful wife and has happily resided with the husband, but simultaneously she has filed a criminal complaint against him. It is difficult to fathom as to how the petitioner can reasonably expect her spouse to continue in a cordial marital relationship with her, when she has filed a criminal case against him, got a Look Out Ciruclar issued against him, and even got him arrested.”
The bench noted the irreparable damage caused by these events, and observed that the relationship had deteriorated beyond repair.