oppn parties Alimony Must Be Decided Based on Facts

News Snippets

  • Government to introduce PF for self-emplyed and gig workers
  • Crush at Puri Rathyatra leaves 2 dead and 78 injured
  • NEET-UG, marred in controversy due to pape4r leak, saw a huge increase in top scores as two scored 715/720 and 11.2 lkah candidates cleared the exam
  • India's first hydrogen-powered train will be flagged off by PM Modi from Jind in Haryana
  • Delhi HC asks the government to monitor Sona Wnagchuk's health regularly
  • TMC Rajya Sabha MP Koel Mallick resigns from her seat, leaves TMC. Mamata asks all those wishing to leave the party to do so before July 21
  • Calcutta HC says land deed is not a proof of citizenship. Refuses to provide protection to a man facing deportation on basis of land deed
  • Supreme Court tells the government to teach the third language in the 3-language formula in Class 6 and not Class 9
  • Government to take steps to boost liquidity for small businesses
  • RBI says that banks cannot sell seized assets back to the defaulters
  • Centre decides to take equity stakes in semiconductor startups
  • Markets remain flat on Thursday: Sensex closes just 1 point ahead and Nifty ended 5 point lower
  • BCCI:Selectors have possibly decided that Rohit Sharma will not be selected for ODIs after the Lord's game on Sunday
  • Japan Open badminton: P V Sindhu stuns world no. 5 Han Yue of China 21-16, 21-14 to enter the quarterfinals
  • 2nd ODI versus England: Indian batting fails miserably except Gill, Kohli and Iyer to score just 233 all out. England win by 4 wickets
Supreme Court clarifies that it has not issued a blanket ban on use of bulldozers, and they can be used after compliance with procedure laid down in civil laws
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. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
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