The Supreme Court enhanced the appellant-wife’s permanent alimony to ₹50,000 per month with a 5% increase every two years, modifying the High Court’s order. The Court held the previous alimony inadequate given the respondent-husband’s income and the appellant’s need to maintain her standard of living. Financial support for the 26-year-old son was not mandated.
Facts Of The Case:
Rakhi Sadhukhan (appellant-wife) and Raja Sadhukhan (respondent-husband) were married on June 18, 1997, and had a son on August 5, 1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. The appellant-wife then filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 for interim maintenance, and the Trial Court awarded her ₹8,000 per month and ₹10,000 for litigation expenses on January 14, 2010. Subsequently, in Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010, the Trial Court directed the respondent-husband to pay ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹6,000 per month to the minor son, plus ₹5,000 for litigation costs, on March 28, 2014.On January 10, 2016, the Trial Court dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding no proven cruelty. The respondent-husband appealed to the High Court of Calcutta (FAT No. 122 of 2015). During the appeal, the High Court initially directed interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month on May 14, 2015 , later increasing it to ₹20,000 per month on July 14, 2016, noting the respondent’s net monthly salary of ₹69,000. On June 25, 2019, the High Court granted a divorce decree, ordered the respondent to redeem the mortgage on the flat where the appellant resided and transfer its title to her, allowed her and their son to continue living there, and directed permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month with a 5% increase every three years. The High Court also ordered payment of the son’s university education expenses and ₹5,000 per month for his private tuition. The appellant-wife appealed to the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of alimony.
Procedural History:
The matrimonial proceedings commenced with the respondent-husband filing Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 for divorce. Subsequently, the appellant-wife sought interim maintenance through Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 , resulting in an award of ₹8,000 per month. A separate maintenance case, Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010, led to an order for the respondent-husband to pay ₹8,000 to the wife and ₹6,000 to the son monthly. The Trial Court dismissed the divorce suit on January 10, 2016 , prompting the respondent-husband to appeal to the Calcutta High Court (FAT No. 122 of 2015). The High Court initially ordered interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month , later increasing it to ₹20,000. On June 25, 2019, the High Court granted divorce and awarded permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month with a 5% increase every three years. The appellant-wife then appealed to the Supreme Court, which, on February 20, 2023, issued notice on the alimony enhancement question. An interim order on November 7, 2023, increased maintenance to ₹75,000. The Supreme Court ultimately enhanced the permanent alimony to ₹50,000 per month with a 5% increase every two years.
READ ALSO :Chandigarh High Court Gets Parking Upgrade: Supreme Court Approves Eco-Friendly Green Pavers
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court required revision. The Court found that the respondent-husband’s income, financial disclosures, and past earnings indicated his capacity to pay a higher amount. The Court also noted that the appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to maintenance that reflects the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the Court considered the inflationary cost of living and the appellant-wife’s continued reliance on maintenance as her sole means of financial support as necessitating a reassessment of the alimony amount. In its considered opinion, the Court deemed a sum of ₹50,000 per month to be just, fair, and reasonable to ensure the appellant-wife’s financial stability. The Court also clarified that while no further mandatory financial support would be directed for the 26-year-old son, the respondent-husband was free to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses, and the son’s right to inheritance remained unaffected
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, having considered the submissions and materials on record, concluded that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court required revision. The Court found that the respondent-husband’s income, financial disclosures, and past earnings established his capacity to pay a higher amount. The Court also observed that the appellant-wife, who remained unmarried and was living independently, was entitled to maintenance reflecting her marital standard of living and ensuring her future, considering inflationary costs and her sole reliance on maintenance. Consequently, the Supreme Court, in its considered opinion, determined that a sum of ₹50,000 per month would be just, fair, and reasonable to ensure the appellant-wife’s financial stability. This amount is subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. Regarding the son, now 26 years of age, the Court was not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support, but left it open for the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. The Court clarified that the son’s right to inheritance remains unaffected and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law. In view of these considerations, the appeal was allowed. The impugned order of the High Court was modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be ₹50,000 per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years. The contempt petition was to be disposed of accordingly, and any pending applications stood disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rakhi Sadhukhan versus Raja Sadhukhan Citation: 2025 INSC 789 Civil Appeal No.: 10209 of 2024 Date of Judgment: May 29, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here