Voluntary retirement is no excuse to skip alimony: SC

‘If husband is able-bodied and can support himself, he is legally bound to support his wife’

April 08, 2015 11:57 pm | Updated 11:57 pm IST - NEW DELHI:

Deciding the case of a man who took voluntary retirement and stopped paying maintenance to his divorced wife, the Supreme Court held that he has to continue paying her as long as he is “healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself.”

Deciding the case of a man who took voluntary retirement and stopped paying maintenance to his divorced wife, the Supreme Court held that he has to continue paying her as long as he is “healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself.”

Deciding the case of a man who took voluntary retirement and stopped paying maintenance to his divorced wife, the Supreme Court held that he has to continue paying her as long as he is “healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself.”

In a judgment, a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant said reasons given by estranged husbands like “they do not have a job, the business is not doing well” to skip payment are just bald excuses. “These have no acceptability in law,” Justice Misra, who authored the verdict, said.

The right to get maintenance is “absolute” for a woman, and she cannot be reduced to the state of a “beggar” after being compelled to leave her matrimonial home.

“If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for the wife’s right to receive maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right,” the court held in the judgment dated April 6.

The court held that the obligation of the man to pay maintenance is “heightened” when the couple’s children are with the wife. Again, the amount of maintenance should not be that which would only mean their “mere survival.”

As per law, she should lead a life similar to the one she would have in her husband’s house. “And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one,” Justice Misra wrote.

The court was deciding the case of a former Armyman who, according to his wife, took voluntary retirement so that he did not have to pay her the monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000.

The High Court felt that his means had been considerably reduced after retirement, and halved the maintenance sum to Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved, the wife moved the Supreme Court.

Again, the Bench found that the litigation on the maintenance had dragged on from 1998 to 2012 in the High Court.

Terming such procrastination “unacceptable”, the Supreme Court observed that such prolonged court battles only further corrode human relationships and take a toll on society.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.