Ex RCom employee wins alimony case against first wife due to financial distress and despite second marriage and property sale

Economic Times

2 days ago

ET Online Delhi HC denies wife's alimony demand which she filed after finding out husband's property sale deal and 2nd marriage; Know why husband won On August 4, 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected a demand for Rs 60,000 in monthly maintenance (alimony) from a wife who worked as a senior teacher in a reputed secondary school in New Delhi. The court held that she couldn't claim alimony from her husband since it was proved that she had some source of income while her husband's financial, physical and emotional conditions were visibly strained.
The husband's lawyers told Delhi High Court: 'The Respondent (husband), aged around 73 years, was formerly employed with Reliance Communication, where he served until his retirement in the year 2017. It is stated that, owing to the financial collapse and insolvency of the said company, he was deprived of his retiral benefits, including pension and final settlement dues. The Respondent (husband) contends that he is unemployed, and is devoid of any independent source of income.'
Moreover, the Delhi High Court noted that the wife filed this maintenance (alimony) case only after she found out about her estranged husband's second marriage and the sale of his property. The Delhi High Court looked into this and found : 'The record reflects that the Appellant (wife) has been residing separately of her own volition for over three decades, and during this extended period of time, never felt the need to seek any relief from the Courts or assistance even. In fact, as is evident from the pleadings, it appears that the present action has been actuated by the Appellant (wife) upon the gaining of the knowledge of the alleged second marriage and the transaction in respect of the sale of the property.'The Delhi High Court also uncovered more lies from the wife. Keep reading to see the legal reasoning the High Court used to rule in favour of the husband. How did this maintenance (alimony) case start? According to the order of Delhi High Court dated August 4, 2025, here's the timeline of events: March 22, 1978: The marriage happens.
The marriage happens. November 24, 1986: First son is born.
First son is born. May 11, 1986: Second son is born.
Second son is born. 1987: Wife starts living separately from her husband with their two sons.
Wife starts living separately from her husband with their two sons. 2003: A joint petition for divorce was filed by both of them.
A joint petition for divorce was filed by both of them. July 2014: Wife retires from her school teaching job.
Wife retires from her school teaching job. 2017: Husband retires from his job.
Husband retires from his job. February 24, 2021: Wife filed a petition in family court seeking a declaration that the alleged subsequent marriage contracted by the Husband is null and void ab initio as it is bigamy.
Wife filed a petition in family court seeking a declaration that the alleged subsequent marriage contracted by the Husband is null and void ab initio as it is bigamy. February 8, 2023: Family court dismissed wife's application under Section 24 for interim maintenance of Rs 60,000 per month, and litigation expenses amounting to Rs 1,00,000. She filed an appeal in Delhi High Court after this. Wife filed the alimony case only when she came to know about the husband's second marriage and property deal The Delhi High Court said: 'The record reflects that the Appellant (wife) has been residing separately of her own volition for over three decades, and during this extended period of time, never felt the need to seek any relief from the Courts or assistance even.
"In fact, as is evident from the pleadings, it appears that the present action has been actuated by the Appellant (husband) upon the gaining of the knowledge of the alleged second marriage and the transaction in respect of the sale of the property.' Wife has adequate financial resources to support her Delhi HC said:
'It stands placed on record that the Appellant (wife) is in possession of matured LIC policies in her name. The Appellant (wife) is also residing with her two sons, both of whom appear to be gainfully employed. Though there appears to be some whatsapp chats of the year 2020 and 2021 where one of the sons was asking for money, the income affidavit of the appellant suggests that both sons are having independent income.'
'It was also stated by the counsel that both sons are independently earning. In light of these facts, it appears that the Appellant (wife) has adequate financial resources and support systems available to her.' Also read: Divorce case: Wife's WhatsApp chats can be valid evidence about her extramarital affair, even when obtained without her consent, rules Madhya Pradesh High Court Wife is lying about her finances Delhi HC said:
The Appellant's (wife) claim that she is sustaining herself on donations from her former students does not appear to be supported by any evidence. The fact that various sums were deposited by unrelated persons, without necessary proof in support, cuts no ice in favour of either of the parties.
However, it clearly leads us to conclude that the Appellant (wife) has some source of income to enable her to take care of herself. Delhi High Court's investigation: Husband is living off loans given by brother and friend Question of law answered by Delhi High Court: 'The issue arising for consideration in the present appeal pertains to the rejection of the claim for maintenance pendente lite (during litigation) and expenses of proceedings made by the Appellant under Section 24 of the Act.'The Delhi High Court said: (no part of the judge's judgement has been altered or changed) 'This Court notes the submission advanced on behalf of Respondent (husband), who is stated to be more than 70 years of age, rendering him unfit for any gainful employment.'
'It is further brought on record that the Respondent (husband) was previously employed with Reliance Communication till 2017; however, owing to the company's financial collapse and subsequent insolvency proceedings, he was deprived of all retiral benefits, including pension and final settlement dues.'
'In addition, as evident from the reply to the appeal filed by the Respondent (husband) before this Court, it emerges that the Respondent has had to borrow substantial sums - Rs 10,00,000 from his brother and Rs 13,00,000 from a friend, for the purpose of meeting his basic living expenses. These liabilities, incurred solely for sustenance, remain outstanding and unpaid, owing to the Respondent's (husband) continuing financial incapacity.' Delhi High Court said: 'In the present case, it is clear that the Respondent's financial frailty, compounded by his advanced age, and loss of post-retirement entitlements, weighs significantly against imposing any further pecuniary obligation upon him.' Delhi High Court final judgement: No maintenance for wife Delhi HC said:
'In light of the above authoritative pronouncements and in the absence of any persuasive evidence justifying the Appellant's (wife) claim of the interim maintenance, this Court is of the considered view that the Respondent (husband) should not be burdened with the obligation to provide interim maintenance, particularly when his own financial, physical and emotional conditions are visibly strained.'
'In our considered opinion, the income of the Appellant (wife) is sufficient to maintain herself, and as such, the learned Family Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the Appellant (wife) under Section 24 of the Act.'
'We do not find any infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Family Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that observations made in this order do not tantamount to expression of any opinion on the merits of the case that is pending before the learned Family Court.' What did Delhi High Court say about Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act? The High Court said:
Before embarking upon the merits of the appeal, it is apposite to examine the legislative intent underlying Section 24 of the Act. The primary object of this provision is to ensure that in matrimonial proceedings, the spouse who is genuinely unable to maintain themselves or to meet the expenses of the proceedings is not placed at a procedural disadvantage.
The law ensures that nobody is disabled from prosecuting or defending the matrimonial case by starvation or lack of funds. The law in this regard has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain.
The invocation of Section 24 is not to be construed as an automatic entitlement. The discretion conferred upon the Court under this provision is wide, and must be exercised judiciously, keeping in view the financial standing, independent income, and overall circumstances of both parties. The law in this regard has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur6 , and Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain. Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act: 'Section 24 is to ensure basic sustenance during litigation, not to impose undue financial burden or to match the lifestyle of the other spouse. Furthermore, it bears emphasis that Section 24 is not intended to act as a substitute for maintenance obligations under personal law. Rather, it is confined to the grant of pendente lite maintenance and expenses of litigation in the course of matrimonial proceedings. Importantly, the statute contemplates applications from either spouse, and in no manner exempts the applicant from demonstrating genuine financial distress.'