look news india
Supreme Court judges on permanent alimony: The Supreme Court on Thursday said that laws made for the welfare of women should not be misused to harass, threaten or extort money from their husbands. The Supreme Court emphasized that maintenance does not mean equalizing the financial position of the ex-spouses, but providing a reasonable standard of living to the dependent woman.
Hindu marriage is a sacred institution, not a business: Supreme Court
The court ruled that an ex-husband cannot be bound to provide maintenance to his ex-wife indefinitely based on her current financial situation. He also said that Hindu marriage is considered a sacred institution, the foundation of the family, not a business.
Laws are for the welfare of women, not for extortion
Justice B.V. “Women need to be careful that these strict provisions of the law are beneficial for their welfare and not to punish, intimidate or coerce their husbands or to extort money,” the bench comprising Nagarathna and Pankaj Meetha said.
What was the matter?
The Supreme Court recently heard an important case where a wife claimed her husband’s Rs. Expressed strong objection to the demand for huge amount as maintenance from property worth Rs 5000 crore. The case involved a petition in which a wife had sought a huge sum of money from her husband after divorce, especially when the husband had paid Rs 500 crore as alimony to his first wife.
This matter was so complicated that the female judge of the Supreme Court, Justice B. V Nagarathna considered this in detail and commented strongly on the wife’s heavy demands. The judge made it clear that this demand is completely against the law and such a claim cannot be made merely on the basis of financial condition. The court rejected the wife’s claim and ordered her to pay only Rs 12 crore as maintenance.
Justice B. V Nagarathna’s harsh comment
This case is related to a petition of a woman, in which she is demanding a share in the maintenance allowance from her husband’s property worth Rs 5,000 crore. After his separation from his first wife, he paid Rs. 500 crores were paid. Regarding this petition, the court replied, ‘Not only the income of the respondent-husband, but also the income of the petitioner-wife, her reasonable needs, her residential rights and other similar factors should be considered.’
In this case Justice B. Terming such a claim as completely unconstitutional and unfair, V Nagarathna said that the law of maintenance is for the honor and maintenance of the wife, but it should be done keeping in mind her position in the marital life. , not on the basis of husband. Current wealth and income.