oppn parties Alimony Must Be Decided Based on Facts

News Snippets

  • R G Kar rape-murder hearing start in Kolkata's Sealdah court on Monday
  • Calcutta HC rules that a person cannot be indicted for consensual sex after promise of marriage even if he reneges on that promise later
  • Cryptocurrencies jump after Trump's win, Bitcoin goes past $84K while Dogecoin jumps 50%
  • Vistara merges with Air India today
  • GST Council to decide on zero tax on term plans and select health covers in its Dec 21-22 meeting
  • SIP inflows stood at a record Rs 25323cr in October
  • Chess: Chennai GM tournament - Aravindh Chithambaram shares the top spot with two others
  • Asian Champions Trophy hockey for women: India thrash Malaysia 4-0
  • Batteries, chains and screws were among 65 objects found in the stomach of a 14-year-old Hathras boy who died after these objects were removed in a complex surgery at Delhi's Safdarjung Hospital
  • India confirms that 'verification patrolling' is on at Demchok and Depsang in Ladakh after disengagement of troops
  • LeT commander and 2 other terrorists killed in Srinagar in a gunbattle with security forces. 4 security personnel injured too.
  • Man arrested in Nagpur for sending hoax emails to the PMO in order to get his book published
  • Adani Power sets a deadline of November 7 for Bangladesh to clear its dues, failing which the company will stop supplying power to the nation
  • Shubman Gill (90) and Rishabh Pant (60) ensure India get a lead in the final Test after which Ashwin and Jadeja reduce the visitors to 171 for 9 in the second innings
  • Final Test versus New Zealand: Match evenly poised as NZ are 143 ahead with 1 wicket in hand
Security forces gun down 10 'armed militants' in Manipur's Jiribam district but locals say those killed were village volunteers and claim that 11, and not 10, were killed
oppn parties
Alimony Must Be Decided Based on Facts

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2017-04-28 08:13:20

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
In a recent order, a Supreme Court bench observed that twenty five percent of husband’s net salary might be considered a benchmark for awarding alimony to wife in divorce cases. It is surprising that the court observed thus, as alimony is a subject that needs careful examination of facts from the judge hearing the case. Normally, the claimant will make exaggerated claims to extract more than what is reasonable while the person responsible to pay will inflate his expenses and liabilities to avoid a just settlement. But it is a settled principle of law that in such cases, the primary objective of law is to award an alimony that will allow the wife to lead a dignified life, in consonance with what she was used to when living with her husband.

The law seeks to ensure that just the fact that she will be a divorcee must not mean that she would no longer live with dignity. Hence, a number of factors as mandated by law must be taken into account before settling the alimony amount. It could be 25% or it could be higher or even lesser in different circumstances. Although the court has not observed that the 25% benchmark is the upper or lower limit, given the way the lower judiciary interprets such directives, it might well become a fashion to restrict alimony to an upper limit of 25%. That would be a tragedy and would deprive women from getting a just settlement as warranted by their then circumstance in life.

Apart from the duration of the marriage, the incomes of both spouses, the number of children to be supported by the wife and her age are the main facts that need to be examined before deciding on the alimony amount. A judge is expected to apply his minds on the basis of the facts in the case and settle the alimony at an amount that allows the woman to live the life she was accustomed to in her marital home. In doing so, sometimes the figure might exceed 25% of the husband’s net salary. Hence, prescribing a benchmark that can be construed as an upper limit by the trial or family courts is not in the interests of the claimant. image credit: newslawn