The court said that although the woman was “professionally qualified” and could maintain herself, Rs 40 lakh would be “appropriate” as permanent alimony. It also rejected the wife’s plea that she wanted to live with her husband, noting that the family court had rightly granted the divorce in his favour and there was no infirmity in its decision.
“Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant (wife) is professionally qualified and had also worked as a government advocate and can maintain herself, an amount of Rs 40 lakh as permanent alimony would be appropriate,” the September 17 order read.
Two advocates, a marriage and divorce
It was claimed that the couple, who married in March 2014, are both advocates by profession and at the time of filing of the divorce petition, the wife was working as a government advocate, and the husband was working in a corporate law firm. They had a daughter in 2015, who is with the wife presently, and the couple started living separately from 2016 onwards.
The husband claimed that the wife was behaving cruelly with him from the time of vidai (farewell) and continued till she was living with him.
Story continues below this ad
The bench clarified that every disagreement between spouses, occasional loss of temper, and ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life does not mean mental cruelty.
The husband, in November 2016, sought divorce from the wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The family court, later, in April 2024, allowed the husband’s divorce plea and dissolved the marriage. Aggrieved by this order, the wife moved the high court with this appeal.
Arguments
The wife, through advocate Abhijay Negi, argued that the allegations levelled by the husband merely disclosed differences of opinion between them and did not prove ‘cruelty’ or ‘desertion’. Negi added that the argument of the husband that his career was adversely affected is belied by the fact that he is at present a partner in one of the good firms.
On the contrary, senior advocate Rajendra Dobhal, husband’s counsel, submitted that the wife never had the genuine intention to treat the husband’s home as her matrimonial home. He argued that the wife’s consistent conduct showed that she always treated the marriage as a mere formality or “paper marriage”, without accepting the responsibilities, duties, and commitments attached to it.
It was further argued that the wife consistently pressured the husband to sever ties with his parents, abandon his flourishing career as a corporate lawyer, and relocate to her preferred location.
Story continues below this ad
‘Repeatedly humiliated her husband’
The court noted that the matter concerns a couple, both advocates by profession, and found that the evidence on record indicated a continuing course of conduct by the wife. It further found that the husband had spoken about her “misbehaviour” towards him in the presence of his friends, colleagues and seniors.
The court clarified that every disagreement between spouses, occasional loss of temper and ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life does not mean mental cruelty. It also pointed out that the desire of one spouse that the other should relocate or make adjustments in his profession by itself cannot be regarded as cruelty.
The court, though, rejected the wife’s plea to live with the husband, stating there is no infirmity in the decision of the family court. It disposed of the wife’s appeal by directing the husband to pay Rs 70 lakh as a one-time amount for the welfare and education of the minor daughter and Rs 40 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife.
The bench clarified that every disagreement between spouses, occasional loss of temper, and ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life does not mean mental cruelty.