‘Alimony’ may be the most heard word this December in India, once again coming to the forefront when on Thursday, the Bench Justice Pankaj Mithal and BV Nagaratha, while hearing a divorce petition, said some harsh yet important words about the ongoing ‘fashion’ of using alimony and other such welfare measures for women, like the use of sections including rape, criminal intimidation, and subjecting a married woman to cruelty as a “combined package” for extortion of money from the husband.
“Strict laws are designed so that the women’s welfare can be ensured; they are not meant to be the tools to chastise, threaten, domineer, or extort their husbands,” said the bench while hearing the case.
The SC remarks also highlighted the contemporary issues relating to marriages that are leading to ‘societal downfall’: “Hindu marriage was considered a sacred institution, as a foundation for a family and not a commercial venture,” it said.
This came not just a week after the tragic suicide of a Bengaluru man, who accused his wife and her family of extortion and harassment. The wife and her family have been arrested, and investigations on the case are going on.
Also, while hearing a similar case last week, the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines for determining alimony and gave eight points regarding the same that should be followed by each and every court, emphasizing fairness and transparency.
The Case: –
The remarks from SC’s side came when the bench dissolved the marriage between the couple on Thursday. The wife, along with the alimony, also posed some criminal charges against the husband, which the top court quashed.
The couple, wanting a divorce, filed a case before the top court.
The wife filed a transfer petition under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending in a court in Bhopal to a court in Pune, while the husband is looking for the termination of marriage under Article 142(1) of the Indian Constitution.
The husband in the case has been directed by the family court at Pune to dispense 10 crore as stable alimony to the wife. In the joint plea, searching for the dissolution of their marriage by a decree of mutual divorce, the husband agreed to pay 8 crores towards a full and ultimate settlement.
However, the Supreme Court, agreeing with the family court, said, “An additional amount of ₹ 2 crore is liable to be paid to the petitioner so as to enable her to acquire another flat…”
The Observations:
The discussions in the top court regarding the case also laid down room for some observations. The supreme court’s observations came when the bench split up the marriage between the couple on the grounds of its unrecoverable breakdown.
The court said that “the provisions in the criminal laws are made in such a way that the empowerment and protection of women are justified, but sometimes those laws and measures are used by certain women more for purposes that they were never meant for.”
Further observations made by the Supreme Court:
- Court as a negotiation table: The use of courts’ doors for negotiation and as a tool to get the husband and in-laws to agree with the demands and threatening them by imposing fake criminal charges is also not uncommon, which were mostly monetary in nature.
- Police’s quick response to certain cases: The nature of laws that are likely to be broken being very strict in nature attracts swift police action, which is also in the favor of women, which can be used by them as a means to terrorize the husband and his family, the court observed.
- Equalization of Wealth: – Equalization of wealth, also known as redistribution of wealth, is the process through which the transferring of wealth from one person or group to another to reduce inequality happens and was also at the forefront of the ongoing observation. Alimony in certain cases is provided on the basis of assets, status, and income of their spouse, only in cases when the spouse is a person of means or is doing well for himself. The bench, however, wondered if the wife would be willing to seek an equalization of wealth if, due to some unfortunate event, after separation, he was rendered insolvent.
The court concluded by saying, “The collective effect of this chain of events is often overlooked by the actual individual players involved therein, which is that even minor disputes between husband and wife tend to snowball into ugly, prodigious battles of ego and reputation and washing dirty linen in public, eventually leading to the relationship turning sour to the extent that there remains no possibility of a reconciliation or cohabitation.”
