Background:

Rakhi Sadhukhan and Raja Sadhukhan were married in June 1997 under the Special Marriage Act and had a son in August 1998. Over time, marital issues arose, and in 2008, Raja filed for divorce, alleging cruelty and desertion. During the legal proceedings, Rakhi applied for maintenance—first under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and later under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Now under Section 144 BSA, 2023). She was granted interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month for herself and ₹6,000 for their son. In 2019, the Calcutta High Court finalized the divorce and awarded Rakhi a permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month, along with support for housing and their son’s education. Dissatisfied with the amount, Rakhi appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking increased maintenance in line with the standard of living she had during the marriage.

Issues

• Whether the quantum of permanent alimony awarded by the High Court was just, reasonable, and aligned with the standard of living the wife enjoyed during the marriage?

• Whether the Supreme Court should reassess and enhance the permanent alimony amount considering the husband’s current financial capacity and the rising cost of living due to inflation?

• Whether the husband remains legally obligated to pay maintenance for a son who has attained the age of majority and is financially independent?

Observations:

The Supreme Court observed that:

• The Court reaffirmed that the determination of permanent alimony must take into account the standard of living the wife was accustomed to during the marriage. It emphasized that the primary purpose of alimony is to prevent a divorced spouse from facing undue financial hardship solely as a consequence of the marital breakdown.

• The Supreme Court noted that the alimony amount set by the High Court had remained unchanged over time and failed to consider the effects of inflation and the rising cost of living. The Court emphasized that financial support determined years earlier can become inadequate if it is not revised to reflect present-day economic conditions.

• The Court acknowledged that the husband had stable employment and a substantial monthly income of ₹1.64 lakh, indicating his financial capacity to increase the alimony. It clarified that although the husband may have other responsibilities—such as supporting a second wife or elderly parents—these obligations do not override his primary duty to provide for his divorced spouse, particularly when she remains financially dependent.

• With respect to maintenance for the son, the Court held that since he had reached the age of majority and was gainfully employed, the father was under no statutory obligation to continue providing financial support under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the Court noted that the father may, at his discretion, offer voluntary assistance. It also affirmed that the son’s right to inherit from his father remains unaffected.

Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and enhanced the amount of permanent alimony payable to Rakhi Sadhukhan. The Court directed:

• The monthly maintenance was increased from ₹20,000 to ₹50,000, with a 5% increment every two years to adjust for inflation and maintain the dignity and standard of life to which the wife was entitled during marriage.

• The Court ruled that since the son had attained majority and was self-reliant, no maintenance obligation existed under law. However, the son retained his right to inheritance from his father.

• All related pending applications and contempt petitions were disposed of, bringing finality to the long-standing litigation.

• This judgment reinforced the principle that alimony should not be symbolic but realistically reflective of the marital lifestyle and economic conditions.

Laws related therewith:

Under BNSS: Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 125 CrPC, 1973): remedy for maintenance of wife, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.

• Applicable regardless of personal laws; a social justice provision to prevent destitution and vagrancy.

Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Pertains to permanent alimony and maintenance.

• Allows the court to grant an amount to either spouse, taking into account the income, property, and conduct of the parties, as well as other circumstances.

Special Marriage Act, 1954: Since the marriage in this case was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, the provisions concerning divorce and maintenance under Sections 36 and 37 of the Act were relevant.

• Section 36: Interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings.

• Section 37: Permanent alimony and maintenance upon divorce.

Judicial Precedents:

• Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199: Maintenance must be realistic, not symbolic.

• Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324: Guidelines for fixing maintenance, considering standard of living, income disclosure, and inflation.