Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2025 INSC 789
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
  • Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
  • Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2025 INSC 789
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
  • Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
  • Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Rakhi Sadhukhan (appellant-wife) and Raja Sadhukhan (respondent-husband) married on 18 June 1997 and had a son on 5 August 1998. In July 2008 the respondent instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant filed applications for maintenance—first under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and later under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—obtaining interim and regular maintenance orders from the trial court.

The trial court ultimately dismissed the husband’s divorce suit on 10 January 2016 for failure to prove cruelty. He appealed (FAT No. 122 of 2015). During the appeal, the High Court granted and later enhanced interim maintenance. On 25 June 2019 the High Court allowed the appeal, granted a decree of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown, directed redemption and transfer of the mortgaged flat to the wife, allowed her and the son to stay there, and fixed permanent alimony at ₹20,000 per month with a 5 % increase every three years.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of alimony, the wife filed Civil Appeal No. 10209 of 2024 before the Supreme Court. Notice was issued on 20 February 2023 limited to enhancement of permanent alimony. On 7 November 2023, in the husband’s absence, the Court temporarily enhanced maintenance to ₹75,000 per month. The husband later appeared and sought vacation of that interim order, leading to the present judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month fixed by the High Court was adequate or required enhancement in light of the respondent-husband’s financial capacity and the appellant-wife’s needs.
  2. Whether any continuing mandatory financial support should be ordered for the parties’ 26-year-old son.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant-Wife’s Arguments

  • The ₹20,000 fixed by the High Court was initially only interim maintenance and is inadequate as permanent alimony.
  • The respondent’s monthly income is approximately ₹4,00,000, indicating capacity to pay substantially more.
  • The quantum should reflect the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.

Respondent-Husband’s Arguments

  • His current net monthly salary is ₹1,64,039 from the Institute of Hotel Management, Taratala; earlier higher earnings with Taj Hotel are no longer relevant.
  • Monthly household expenses are ₹1,72,088; he has remarried and supports a dependent family and aged parents.
  • Their son, now 26, is no longer financially dependent.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court assessed the husband’s present and past earnings, the financial disclosures produced (salary slips, bank statements, income-tax returns), and concluded that he is capable of paying a higher amount than the ₹20,000 ordered by the High Court. The Court emphasised the following considerations:

  • The appellant remains unmarried, lives independently, and relies solely on maintenance for financial support.
  • The maintenance must correspond to the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.
  • Inflationary pressures and the need to secure the wife’s future justify enhancement.

Balancing the husband’s stated obligations and his earning capacity, the Court found ₹50,000 per month, with a 5 % biennial increase, to be “just, fair and reasonable.” As their son is an adult, no compulsory support was ordered, though voluntary contributions were left open. The Court clarified that the son’s inheritance rights remain unaffected.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed and High Court order modified. Permanent alimony to the appellant-wife is fixed at ₹50,000 per month, subject to a 5 % increase every two years. No mandatory maintenance for the adult son. The connected contempt petition and pending applications were disposed of.

Implications: The decision immediately increases the appellant’s maintenance but does not establish new precedent beyond reaffirming that alimony must reflect the recipient’s needs, the payer’s capacity, and the marital standard of living.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    RAKHI SADHUKHAN v. RAJA SADHUKHAN

    2025 INSC 789

    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10209 OF 2024 and connected case Page 1 of 6

    REPORTABLE

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10209 OF 2024

    RAKHI SADHUKHAN …APPELLANT(S)

    VERSUS

    RAJA SADHUKHAN …RESPONDENT(S)

    WITH

    CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 857 OF 2024

    IN

    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10209 OF 2024

    RAKHI SADHUKHAN …PETITIONER(S)

    VERSUS

    RAJA SADHUKHAN …RESPONDENT(S)

    J U D G M E N T

    VIKRAM NATH, J.

    1. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in FA No. 92 of 2019 (FAT No. 122 of 2015), whereby the Division Bench allowed the respondent-husband's appeal and granted a decree of divorce, awarding permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, with an increase of 5% every three years.

    1

    2. The facts relevant to the present appeal are as follows:

    2.1 The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on 18.06.1997.

    2.2 A son was born to the them on 05.08.1998.

    2.3 In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the appellant-wife.

    2.4 Subsequently, the appellant-wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 in the same suit under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son.

    2.5 The Trial Court, by order dated 14.01.2010, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

    2.6 The appellant-wife then instituted Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs.

    2

    2.7 The Trial Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that the respondent-husband had failed to prove cruelty. Aggrieved, the respondent filed FAT No. 122 of 2015 before the High Court of Calcutta.

    2.8 During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-wife filed CAN No. 4505 of 2025 seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- for herself and Rs. 20,000/- for the son, along with Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

    2.9 The High Court, by order dated 14.05.2015, directed the respondent-husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month.

    2.10 Subsequently, by order dated 14.07.2016, the High Court noted that the respondent-husband was drawing a net monthly salary of Rs. 69,000/- and enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs. 20,000/- per month.

    2.11 Finally, the High Court, by the impugned order dated 25.06.2019, allowed the respondent's appeal, granted a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and directed the respondent-husband to:

    (i) redeem the mortgage on the flat where the appellant-wife was residing and transfer the title deed to her name by 31.08.2019;

    3

    (ii) allow the appellant-wife and their son to continue residing in the said flat; and

    (iii) continue to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, subject to a 5% increase every three years.

    Additionally, the High Court directed payment of educational expenses for the son's university education and Rs. 5,000/- per month for private tuition. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the appellant-wife is before this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

    3. This Court, vide order dated 20.02.2023, issued notice confined to the question of enhancement of permanent alimony awarded to the appellant-wife.

    4. By interim order dated 07.11.2023, this Court, noting the absence of representation on behalf of the respondent- husband despite proof of service, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs. 75,000/- with effect from 01.11.2023. The respondent-husband subsequently entered appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim order.

    5. The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month, which the High Court made final, was originally awarded as interim maintenance. She submits that the respondent-husband has a monthly income of approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- and the quantum of alimony

    4

    awarded is not commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the parties during the marriage.

    6. In response, the respondent-husband submits that his current net monthly income is Rs. 1,64,039/-, earned from his employment at the Institute of Hotel Management, Taratala, Kolkata. He has placed on record salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for the year 2023-2024. It is further stated that he was earlier employed with the Taj Hotel, drawing a gross annual salary of Rs. 21,92,525/-. He also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs. 1,72,088/-, and that he has remarried, has a dependent family, and aged parents. The respondent- husband contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially dependent.

    7. Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.

    5

    8. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.

    9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, as noted above.

    10. The contempt petition to be disposed of accordingly.

    11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

    ………………………………..J.

    [VIKRAM NATH]

    ………………………………..J.

    [SANDEEP MEHTA]

    NEW DELHI;

    MAY 29, 2025

    6

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    RAKHI SADHUKHAN v. RAJA SADHUKHAN
    (May 29, 2025)