2 days ago
SC: Alimony from first marriage irrelevant in dispute with second spouse
MUMBAI: The Supreme Court has ruled recently that alimony received from a previous marriage cannot be considered while deciding matrimonial disputes in a subsequent marriage. SC: Alimony from first marriage irrelevant in dispute with second spouse
The case concerned a couple, both previously divorced, who married on July 25, 2015. Their relationship broke down within one year and nine months, with disputes centring on a Mumbai apartment where they had lived.
The husband claimed his wife had already received a 'fair settlement' from her earlier divorce. Alleging constant harassment, he said he left the flat to live with his parents and his disabled child in Faridabad, giving up a lucrative private bank job.
The wife, however, accused him of intimidation and domestic violence, saying he abandoned her without means to survive. In 2018, she lodged an FIR under Section 498-A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, prompting criminal proceedings. She had also filed a domestic violence complaint in May 2017 against him and his parents, while he petitioned for divorce in a Delhi court.
During mediation, the couple reached a settlement on September 1, 2022: the husband would gift the flat and its parking spaces to her, while she would clear the outstanding loan and maintenance charges. But before the second motion for divorce, the wife withdrew from the agreement, demanding ₹12 crore in permanent alimony in addition to the property.
The husband approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the 2018 criminal proceedings, arguing the wife had backed out of the settlement to pressure him into a better deal. His counsel, advocate Madhavi Diwan, told the court the flat was worth around ₹4 crore and the parking spaces could generate rental income.
The wife's counsel countered that she had no job or income, while the husband remained lucratively employed, owned property worth crores, and ran two businesses. She sought ₹12 crore in alimony plus ownership of the apartment free of encumbrances.
Justice K Vinod Chandran, dissolving the marriage, quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband, terming the allegations 'vague'. The court said the wife's earlier alimony was irrelevant, but took into account the husband's responsibility towards his autistic child, her educational qualifications, and the fact that she was gainfully employed.
Finding the apartment transfer adequate compensation, the court rejected her ₹12 crore demand and directed the husband to clear all arrears with the housing society and execute a gift deed transferring the flat to her.
