Shivaji Rathore 04-Feb-2026
In a significant reaffirmation of women’s right to live with dignity after divorce, the Supreme Court of India has observed that a husband cannot escape his legal obligation to maintain his ex-wife merely on the ground that she is educated or has parental support.
A Bench comprising Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and R. Mahadevan made these observations while allowing an appeal filed by the wife against an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had declined to interfere with the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court at ₹15,000 per month.
Marriage Is More Than a Financial Arrangement
Emphasising the social and emotional foundation of marriage, the Supreme Court observed:
“Marriage, as an institution in our society, is founded on emotional bonding, companionship, and mutual support, which cannot be evaluated in purely monetary terms. A woman often enters matrimony with legitimate aspirations of a stable and dignified life.”
The Court clarified that when a marriage breaks down, the husband’s responsibility does not end simply because the wife is capable of earning or is supported by her parents.
Right to Live With Dignity Post-Divorce
The Bench further held that:
“Post-divorce, the wife is entitled to live a life consistent with the standard of living she was accustomed to during the subsistence of the marriage.”
This right, the Court noted, flows from the constitutional and statutory obligation to ensure dignity and social security to women, especially in the aftermath of marital breakdown.
Background of the Case
In the present matter, the Family Court had awarded maintenance of ₹15,000 per month to the wife. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount, the wife approached the Supreme Court contending that:
The respondent-husband was earning approximately ₹1,60,000 per month.
The maintenance amount fixed was insufficient considering present-day living expenses and inflation.
The respondent-husband opposed the plea on the grounds that:
The wife was highly educated and capable of maintaining herself. She had adequate parental support. He was facing financial liabilities due to a second marriage which had also ended in separation.
Supreme Court Rejects Husband’s Defence
Rejecting the husband’s arguments, the Supreme Court held that educational qualifications or parental support cannot be used as shields to deny fair maintenance.
Taking judicial notice of inflation and the rising cost of living, the Court observed:
“Considering the present cost of living, the impact of inflation over the past decade, and the overall circumstances of the parties, we are of the view that the amount awarded by the Family Court, as affirmed by the High Court, is inadequate and warrants enhancement.”
Reliance on Earlier Precedents
The Bench placed reliance on its earlier judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the Court had quoted with approval the ruling in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801, holding that:
“It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support.”
The Court reiterated that maintenance is fact-specific and must be moulded based on the financial capacity of the husband and the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage.
Final Directions
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court enhanced the permanent alimony payable to the wife, holding:
“The permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife is enhanced from ₹15,000 per month to ₹30,000 per month, which shall be payable by the respondent-husband.”
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the settled legal position that maintenance is a measure of social justice and not charity. The Supreme Court has once again clarified that a divorced woman’s right to live with dignity cannot be compromised merely because she is educated or has parental backing. The ruling serves as an important precedent for Family Courts and High Courts while determining maintenance, particularly in an era of rising inflation and changing socio-economic realities.
Cause Title:
Anamika Jain vs Atul Jain
SLP No. 5220 of 2024
