Delhi High Court denies wife’s request for alimony after divorce

The pair was married in a five-star hotel on December 6, 2019, went on a honeymoon to the Maldives, and the husband’s bank statements were considered by the court while determining the amount, and it was determined that both were members of a higher middle class society.

The Delhi High Court rejected a plea by the woman demanding increased alimony from her husband after they broke up in 2020, less than ten months after getting married, saying that couples who have a tendency to appear wealthy before marriage often pretend to be impoverished after separation.

“We observe that prior to marriage, both parties often present an inflated income and portray themselves as wealthy, but regrettably, when disagreements arise, their earnings abruptly collapse, and they both pretend to be penurious with no reliable source of income,” a bench of justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna stated.

The court went on to hold, “Despite that, they both continue to have a similar standard of living from the sources which are unknown or are loans from friends and family, of which no details are forthcoming.”

On July 28, a family court issued an order instructing the husband to pay the wife Rs. 25,000 per month in alimony. The woman appealed this judgment, which was passed on October 11.

The husband’s bank accounts and the pair’s December 6, 2019, wedding at a five-star hotel were considered by the court when determining the appropriate amount. Based on these details, the court determined that the couple belonged to a higher middle-class social class.

The wife had gone to the high court to request that her monthly support be increased from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 2 lakh.

Through her attorney, Ruchi Munja, the wife argued that she was unemployed and did not have any income because she had quit her job as a chartered accountant (CA) in June of 2022.

However, the husband countered that his wife was receiving far more maintenance than she should have because she was not only well qualified but also employed through June 2022 and a sleeping partner in her father’s company. He made this argument through attorney Sunil Mittal.

Additionally, he said that his monthly expenses matched his income and that his wife’s irrational claims under various actions were evidence of her deliberate attempts to harass her husband.

Leave a comment