Case Number
CIVIL APPEAL/10209/2024; CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)/857/2024
Case Title
Rakhi Sadhukhan vs. Raja Sadhukhan
Headnote
The Supreme Court reviewed a High Court order that granted a divorce and awarded the wife permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month. The wife appealed, seeking an enhancement of this amount. The Court considered the husband’s financial capacity, including his past and present income, as well as the wife’s need to maintain a standard of living comparable to what she had during the marriage. Taking into account inflation and the wife’s continued financial dependency, the Court found the initial amount to be insufficient. It enhanced the permanent alimony to ₹50,000 per month, with a mandated 5% increase every two years, to ensure the wife’s financial stability. The Court also clarified that no mandatory financial support would be directed for the couple’s adult son.
Court
Supreme Court of India
Type
Judgment
SCR Citation
NA
Neutral Citation
2025 INSC 789
Disposal Nature
Appeal Allowed
Case Type
CIVIL APPEAL
Law Type
Family Law
Judgment Authored by
Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath*
Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment
May 29, 2025
Case Start Date
NA
Case Arising From
The appeal arises from a final judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta dated June 25, 2019. The High Court was hearing an appeal (FA No. 92 of 2019) filed by the husband against a Trial Court order that had dismissed his divorce petition. The High Court allowed the husband’s appeal, granted a decree of divorce, and awarded the wife permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month. The wife, being dissatisfied with the amount of alimony, filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Background and Facts
The appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married on June 18, 1997, and have a son born on August 5, 1998. In July 2008, the husband filed for divorce, alleging cruelty by the wife. The Trial Court found that the husband had failed to prove cruelty and dismissed his divorce suit.
The husband then appealed to the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court overturned the Trial Court’s decision, granting a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. As part of the divorce decree, the High Court ordered the husband to pay the wife permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month. The wife challenged the amount of this alimony, arguing it was insufficient, which led to the present appeal in the Supreme Court.
Timeline
- June 18, 1997: The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married.
- August 5, 1998: A son was born to the couple.
- July 2008: The husband filed a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
- January 14, 2010: The Trial Court awarded the wife interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month.
- March 28, 2014: The Trial Court ordered the husband to pay maintenance of ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹6,000 per month to the son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- January 10, 2016: The Trial Court dismissed the husband’s divorce suit.
- June 25, 2019: The High Court of Calcutta allowed the husband’s appeal, granted a divorce, and awarded the wife permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month.
- February 20, 2023: The Supreme Court issued a notice in the wife’s appeal, limited to the question of enhancing the alimony.
- November 7, 2023: The Supreme Court passed an interim order enhancing the monthly maintenance to ₹75,000.
- May 29, 2025: The Supreme Court delivered its final judgment, modifying the permanent alimony.
Parties Involved
- Appellant/Petitioner: Rakhi Sadhukhan (Wife)
- Respondent: Raja Sadhukhan (Husband)
Procedural History
- Lower Court/Subordinate court/Tribunals Decisions: The Trial Court dismissed the husband’s Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008, finding that he had not proven the allegation of cruelty against the wife.
- Appeals: The husband filed an appeal (FAT No. 122 of 2015) before the High Court of Calcutta. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, granted a divorce, and awarded permanent alimony. The wife then appealed to the Supreme Court against the quantum of alimony.
Issues Framed
Whether the quantum of permanent alimony awarded to the appellant-wife by the High Court should be enhanced.
Areas of Debate
Whether the permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month is just and adequate, considering the husband’s income, the wife’s needs, and the standard of living during the marriage.
Cases Cited
NA
Acts/Rules/Orders Referred
- Special Marriage Act, 1954
- Type: Act
- Section: 27
- Context: The husband filed the original divorce suit under this section, seeking dissolution of the marriage.
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Type: Act
- Section: 24
- Context: The wife filed an application for interim maintenance for herself and her son under this section during the divorce proceedings.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Type: Act
- Section: 125
- Context: The wife instituted separate proceedings under this section, and the Trial Court awarded maintenance for both her and the minor son.
Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case
Special Marriage Act, 1954
Literature Citation
NA
Appearances
- Advocates: Not mentioned.
- Witnesses: Not mentioned.
- Other Persons: Not mentioned.
Prayer
The appellant-wife sought an enhancement of the permanent alimony awarded by the High Court.
Evidence & Findings
- Evidence: Salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns of the respondent-husband for the year 2023-2024.
- Description: These documents were submitted by the husband to disclose his financial status.
- Findings: The documents established the husband’s current net monthly income as ₹1,64,039. It was also noted that his previous gross annual salary was ₹21,92,525. This evidence demonstrated his financial capacity to pay a higher amount of alimony.
- Page/Paragraph: Paragraph 6.
Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff/Accused Arguments
The appellant-wife argued that the permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month awarded by the High Court was inadequate. She contended that this amount was originally set as interim maintenance and was not sufficient for her needs, especially given that the respondent-husband had a monthly income of approximately ₹4,00,000. She claimed the amount was not commensurate with the standard of living the couple had maintained during their marriage.
Respondent/Defendant/Opponent/State Arguments
The respondent-husband argued that his current net monthly income is ₹1,64,039. He submitted that he has remarried, has a dependent family and aged parents to support, and that his monthly household expenses are around ₹1,72,088. He also contended that their son, now 26 years old, is an adult and no longer financially dependent on him.
Ratio Decidendi
- The court’s decision to enhance the alimony was based on the principle that the amount should be just, fair, and reasonable, allowing the wife to maintain a standard of living similar to what she had during the marriage.
- The court considered the husband’s demonstrated financial capacity, based on both his current and past earnings, as a key factor in determining that he could afford to pay a higher amount.
- The court also took into account the wife’s circumstances: she has remained unmarried, is living independently, and relies on maintenance as her sole source of financial support.
- The inflationary cost of living was another crucial factor that necessitated a reassessment of the alimony amount to ensure it provides genuine financial stability for the wife’s future.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is modified. The permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife is increased to ₹50,000 per month. This amount will be subject to a 5% increase every two years. The connected contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.
Legal Jargons and Maxims
- Permanent Alimony: Financial support paid by one spouse to the other on a regular basis after a divorce is finalized.
- Decree of Divorce: The final legal order from a court that officially ends a marriage.
- Interim Maintenance: Temporary financial support ordered by a court to be paid by one spouse to the other while a legal case (like divorce) is ongoing.
- vide: A Latin term used in legal documents meaning “see” or “refer to.”
Exhibits
NA