Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that wife is entitled to maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonable secures her future. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (2025). 

What was the Background of Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (2025) Case?   

• The appellant-wife, Rakhi Sadhukhan, and the respondent-husband, Raja Sadhukhan, were married on 18th  June 1997. 
• A son was born to them on 5th  August 1998. 
• In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty by the appellant-wife. 
• The appellant-wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), claiming interim maintenance and litigation expenses. 
• On 14th  January 2010, the Trial Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month to the appellant-wife and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses. 
• The appellant-wife also filed Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), resulting in an order dated 28th  March 2014 awarding her ₹8,000 per month and the son ₹6,000 per month, with ₹5,000 as litigation costs. 
• On 10th  January 2016, the Trial Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition, finding no proof of cruelty. 
• The respondent-husband challenged the dismissal by filing FAT No. 122 of 2015 in the Calcutta High Court. 
• During the appeal, the appellant-wife filed an application seeking enhanced interim maintenance and litigation costs. 
• The High Court, noting the husband’s income, successively increased interim maintenance to ₹15,000 per month (May 2015) and later to ₹20,000 per month (July 2016). 
• On 25th  June 2019, the High Court allowed the husband's appeal, granted a divorce decree on the grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown, and awarded permanent alimony of ₹20,000/month to the appellant-wife, with a 5% increase every 3 years. 
• The High Court also directed the respondent to redeem the mortgage and transfer the flat’s title to the appellant, continue their residence, and pay for their son's educational and tuition expenses. 
• Dissatisfied with the quantum of alimony, the appellant-wife approached the Supreme Court seeking enhancement. 
• On 7th  November 2023, the Supreme Court passed an interim order enhancing monthly maintenance to ₹75,000, noting non-appearance of the respondent despite service. 
• The respondent-husband later appeared, disclosed his income (₹1,64,039 net monthly), and cited expenses, remarriage, and family responsibilities, arguing against further enhancement. 
• The appellant-wife claimed that the husband earns about ₹4,00,000/month and that ₹20,000/month was inadequate considering their previous lifestyle and inflation.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's award of ₹20,000/month as permanent alimony was originally an interim measure and did not reflect the current financial realities. 
• The Court observed that the respondent-husband’s income and financial disclosures showed his ability to pay a higher amount. 
• It acknowledged that the appellant-wife remained unmarried, was solely dependent on maintenance, and had a right to maintain the standard of living she had during marriage. 
• The Court emphasized that rising cost of living and inflation required a reassessment of maintenance. 
• The Supreme Court held that ₹50,000/month was just, fair, and reasonable permanent alimony for the appellant-wife, with a 5% increase every two years. 
• The Court found no justification to continue financial support for the son, who was 26 years old, but clarified that his right to inheritance remains intact. 
• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was modified to revise the quantum of permanent alimony. 
• The connected contempt petition and all pending applications were disposed of. 

Under which Provisions Maintenance can be Granted to Wife? 

• Section 125 of CrPC, now Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), provides that if a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife unable to maintain herself a Magistrate of First Class may order such person to grant monthly allowance. 
  • The proceedings under Section 144 BNSS are of summary nature.  
• Section 25 of HMA provides that the applicant being either the husband or wife is entitled to receive his or her maintenance from the spouse in the form of a gross sum or monthly sum for a term not exceeding the lifetime of the applicant or until the applicant remarries.   
• Difference between the remedies under Section 25 of HMA and Section 144 of BNSS was laid down in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025): 

What are the Landmark Cases on Granting Maintenance to Wife? 

• Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2020) 
  • The Court laid down several factors for calculating the maintenance amount. The Court held that these factors include but are not limited to: 
    • Status of parties,social and financial.  
    • Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children. 
    • Qualifications and employment status of the parties. 
    • Independent income or assets owned by the parties. 
    • Maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial home. 
    • Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities. 
    • Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife. 
    • Financial capacity of husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities. 
• Kiran Jyoti Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (2024) 
  • The Court in the addition to the above laid down the following: 
    • The court considers the status of the parties, including their social standing, lifestyle, and financial background, while determining maintenance. 
    • The reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children are assessed, covering food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical expenses. 
    • The educational and professional qualifications and employment history of the applicant are important in evaluating their capacity for self-sufficiency. 
    • If the applicant has an independent source of income or owns property, it is examined to see if it is sufficient to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. 
    • The court also considers whether the applicant sacrificed career opportunities due to family responsibilities, which may have affected their financial independence. 
    • A wife who is earning is still eligible for maintenance if her income is insufficient to maintain the lifestyle she had in the matrimonial home. 
    • The needs of minor children, including educational and extracurricular expenses, are significant factors in the maintenance determination.