Alimony received in first marriage divorce is not relevant in second marriage divorce: Supreme Court.
BS News Agency, Delhi:The alimony received in the first marriage divorce is in no way relevant in determining financial support in the subsequent marriage, the Supreme Court has made such an important observation. The country's highest court has rejected the husband's plea on the grounds that a wife cannot claim alimony during a second marriage divorce.
In this case, a man claimed that his wife had already received satisfactory maintenance from her first husband, so she was not entitled to financial support in the second divorce. However, a bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai said, "The maintenance received from the first marriage is irrelevant in the present case."
In this case, the Supreme Court granted divorce by exercising the powers of Article 142 of the Constitution, because according to the court, the marital life of one year and nine months had broken down. It is no longer in the same condition as before.
The wife filed a case against her husband under the Domestic Violence Act (Section 498A of the IPC). Initially, both the parties agreed to a mutual divorce, but later the wife withdrew from the agreement. Then the husband filed a petition in the Bombay High Court to dismiss the case, which was rejected. From there, he approached the Supreme Court.
The husband filed a divorce petition in the Supreme Court and offered to gift his wife a flat worth Rs 4 crore in a prestigious area of Mumbai (Kalpataru Habitat). As an alternative, he wanted to give Rs 4 crore in cash. But the wife demanded permanent maintenance of Rs 12 crore.
In response, the husband said that he is currently unemployed and has left his previous job to take care of his autistic child from his first marriage.
The court observed that the marriage did not last for almost two years and it has broken down. The flat given by the husband is quite reasonable as a gift and is capable of meeting the maintenance needs of the wife after the separation. The husband is currently unemployed and is taking care of a child. The wife is self-employed, has work experience and qualifications in the IT sector.
The Supreme Court said, "The petitioner is currently unemployed. In that situation, there is no reason to ask for further maintenance." The wife argued that her husband's LinkedIn profile contained his job information. The court also rejected this argument.
The Supreme Court further said that the domestic violence case was full of superficial allegations and the marital dispute was exaggerated and converted into a case. Therefore, the case was dismissed. The order said that the husband will have to complete the gift deed related to the transfer of the flat by August 30, 2025. Only then will the divorce take effect. Senior advocate Madhavi Diwan argued for the husband in this case and himself for the wife.