On Thursday, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that laws designed for the welfare of women should not be exploited as tools for harassment, intimidation, or extortion against their husbands. The court clarified that alimony is not intended to equalize the financial status of ex-spouses, but rather to ensure the dependent woman receives a reasonable standard of living post-divorce.

This observation came amid a high-profile case involving techie Atul Subhas, who alleged that his estranged wife and her family demanded exorbitant amounts in maintenance. Initially seeking Rs 2 lakh per month, the demand later escalated to an annual figure of Rs 3 crore. In its ruling, the Supreme Court asserted that an ex-husband cannot be indefinitely obligated to financially support his former wife based on his current wealth. The bench also reiterated that a Hindu marriage, considered a sacred institution, should not be viewed as a “commercial venture.”

Justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mitha, who were presiding over the case, cautioned women to recognize that the strict provisions of family laws are meant for their welfare and should not be used as means to “chastise, threaten, domineer, or extort” from their husbands.

The case involved the dissolution of a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown. The husband was ordered to pay Rs 12 crore as permanent alimony to his estranged wife as a full and final settlement within a month. The wife had claimed that the husband, with a net worth of Rs 5,000 crore and multiple business interests in both India and the US, had previously paid his first wife Rs 500 crore upon their separation, excluding a house in Virginia.

The court stressed that when determining alimony, it must consider factors beyond the husband’s income, including the wife’s earnings, her reasonable needs, and her residential rights. The bench expressed concern over the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony to view it as a means to “equalize wealth” with their spouse. The court pointed out that in such cases, parties often highlight their spouse’s assets, status, and income, demanding sums that could match their wealth.

The justices also raised a critical question: “Would the wife still seek equalization of wealth if, due to unforeseen circumstances after the separation, the husband were left destitute?” The bench highlighted instances where wives, along with their families, have misused serious criminal complaints to exert pressure on the husband and his family, mainly to secure financial demands.

The ruling emphasizes the importance of ensuring that laws meant to protect women are used responsibly, while also safeguarding the rights of men from being subjected to financial exploitation.