‘Marriage is not a commercial venture’: SC rebuke for woman seeking permanent alimony after short-lived nuptials

The Supreme Court of India censured a woman this week over calls for ‘permanent alimony’ following a short-lived marriage. The couple had filed for divorce less than a year after tying the knot on grounds of an irretrievable breakdown — with the woman seeking a significant sum as alimony. The apex court however noted that laws were in place to ensure the welfare of women and not as a means to "chastise, threaten, domineer or extort" their husbands. The remarks come amid renewed discussion about the ‘misuse’ of laws following the Atul Subhash suicide case.

“The women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands,” the Bench said.

The estranged husband — an India-born American citizen — had paid an alimony of ₹500 crore after splitting from his first wife in 2020. He has now been ordered to shell out another ₹12 crore as permanent alimony to his second wife as a full and final settlement for all her claims within a month. The two had gotten hitched at the end of July 2021, and the marriage lasted only a few months. The woman however insisted that she should be granted a much higher amount as permanent alimony — at par with the divorced first wife.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal observed that a Hindu marriage was considered to be a sacred institution, as a foundation for a family and not a “commercial venture”.

The SC also flagged the invocation of IPC sections such as rape, criminal intimidation and subjecting a married woman to cruelty as a "combined package" in most of the complaints related to matrimonial disputes. It commented on cases where such complaints were used as a negotiation tool and noted that the accused could often be denied bail due to the “gravity of the offences” mentioned in the FIR.

The court said that the parties and their family members had been involved in numerous litigations during the brief period of their marital relationship. It also quashed the criminal cases filed by the wife against the estranged husband.

(With inputs from agencies)