Fact-check: Supreme Court's reported 8-point formula for determining alimony is not new

Following the recent suicide of Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash due to alleged harassment by his estranged wife and in-laws, the media has shifted its focus towards matrimonial laws, reporting how they may be tilted in favour of women..News reports state that the Supreme Court recently laid down eight factors for deciding alimony in divorce cases.However, a reading of the judgment dated December 10 reveals that the top court has only summarised what has been held before. Bar & Bench takes a closer look..What was the case before the top court?.The case related to a maintenance case of an estranged couple living separately since 2004. The husband moved the family court for divorce on the ground of cruelty. A few months later, the wife moved for maintenance, which was increased from time to time. Before the top court, the husband challenged a recent Delhi High Court order dismissing his plea against a 2018 family court order asking him to pay ₹1,15,000 interim maintenance to his former wife. The High Court also enhanced the maintenance from ₹1,15,000 to ₹1,45,000 from the date of the enhancement application in 2009 till the withdrawal of the divorce petition in 2016.However, before the top court, the couple agreed to settle their dispute amicably instead of delaying the proceedings. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna Varale then proceeded to dissolve their marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, considering that they have been staying separately for almost over two decades now. .What did the Court say on the question of maintenance?.The Court noted that since the marriage was dissolved, only the question of permanent alimony remained. In this regard, the Court delved into the position of law with regard to determination of permanent alimony. It went through previous judgments laying down the factors to be considered for “a just, fair and reasonable” amount of permanent alimony.“There cannot be strict guidelines or a fixed formula for fixing the amount of permanent maintenance. The quantum of maintenance is subjective to each case and is dependent on various circumstances and factors. The Court needs to look into factors such as income of both the parties; conduct during the subsistence of marriage; their individual social and financial status; personal expenses of each of the parties; their individual capacities and duties to maintain their dependents; the quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the subsistence of the marriage; and such other similar factors,” it said..In particular, the Bench looked at the 2020 landmark ruling in the case of Rajnesh v Neha. In that judgment, the apex court had laid down guidelines for determining the payment of interim compensation and permanent alimony. It also made it mandatory for the couple to file affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings..While issuing the guidelines, the top court in the 2020 ruling took note of the following guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court in 2007:.Further, the Court said that additional factors would be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable. These factors include:(a) Age and employment of parties.(b) Right to residence.(c) Where the wife is earning some income.(d) Maintenance of minor children.(e) Serious disability or ill health..The factors were then reiterated and summarised by the top court in its July 2024 decision in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel..This summarisation of the factors was only reproduced - with slight changes - by the top court in its December 10 judgment. .This proves that the media reports are only partially correct, ignoring the fact that these guidelines have been in place for quite some time now.The judgment dated December 10 itself makes it clear that the guidelines are only a reiteration.Further, the Court made it clear that these are only guidelines, and that a straitjacket formula cannot be followed for grant of permanent alimony..The Court noted in this case that the wife is unemployed, while the husband is an accomplished banker. It proceeded to order a one-time settlement of ₹5 crore to be paid to the wife towards her pending claims, while also taking note of the fact that the husband has already paid ₹72 lakh in arrears of maintenance.It further ordered payment of a ₹1 crore towards maintenance and care of the couple's son for his higher education..[Read Judgment]