The Supreme Court has clarified that maintenance awarded to a wife as alimony under divorce proceedings from her first marriage is not relevant when determining maintenance from her second spouse. This ruling emerged from a matrimonial dispute where the wife—thankfully not drawing any reliance on the previous maintenance—sought long-term alimony from her second husband, stating that an alimony award had earlier been made during her divorce from her first husband, and the amount so awarded was equivalent to what she claimed from the second husband.
The Court unanimously decided that alimony payable by the first spouse cannot serve as a benchmark, or be deducted from or used to recalibrate alimony for the second marriage. The bench observed that maintenance in the context of a second marriage arises from the husband's liability under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or Section 18 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and is independent from obligations owed by the first husband. The Court emphasized the legal principle that duties cast upon different men under different marital relationships cannot be merged or offset.
In this case, the wife had argued before the High Court that since she had received alimony under the first divorce decree, she ought not to be entitled to a similar sum from her second husband. She claimed that to allow it would amount to double recovery and overcompensation. The husband had objected to paying full or equitable maintenance where similar financial obligations had already been discharged by another man, suggesting a partial set‑off.
The Supreme Court held that arguments of double recovery or overlapping liability are legally untenable. It reasoned that the law contemplates separate matrimonial ties as distinct legal relationships, which should be treated independently for maintenance purposes. Alimony obligations across different spouses are not fungible. The Court ruled that the maintenance jurisprudence does not permit one marriage’s obligations to dilute or cancel obligations arising from another.
Observing that marriage creates separate financial responsibilities that are not comparable in dynamics, the Court confirmed that award calculations must be done afresh with respect to each spouse. Comparative financial circumstances or even identical quantum of support previously granted do not factor into alimony from a new spouse. Since maintenance upon second marriage is a statutory entitlement under the matrimonial law, it cannot be attenuated by earlier judgments in unrelated matrimonial disputes.
Consequently, the Court set aside any part of the judgment that reduced alimony awarded by the second husband on account of benefits earlier received. It upheld the entitlement of the wife to maintenance from her second husband based solely on the parameters applicable in their present relationship—namely his income, her financial needs, the nature of marriage, and personal capacity—without recourse to her first alimony award.
Thus, the apex court reaffirmed that alimony and maintenance obligations are tied to specific marital bonds and cannot be aggregated, offset, or considered interchangeably. A husband’s statutory duty to support his wife is distinct and arises independently of prior matrimonial settlements.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.