New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that a husband’s legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife after divorce does not disappear simply because the wife is highly educated or has a supportive family.

A Bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that marriage is an institution built on emotional bonding and mutual support, and a woman is entitled to live with the same dignity and standard of living she enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage.

The Court made these observations while hearing an appeal filed by Anamika Jain (Appellant-Wife) against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had refused to enhance the permanent alimony of ₹15,000 per month awarded by a Family Court in Bhopal.

Background of the Case

The couple was married on November 13, 1994, according to Hindu rites, and they have a son born in 1997. Due to matrimonial discord, they began living separately in 2011. The husband, Dr. Atul Jain, a medical professional, filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

In November 2015, the Family Court at Bhopal granted the divorce but fixed the permanent alimony at a meager ₹15,000 per month, along with a one-time lump sum of ₹50,000. Dissatisfied with this amount, the wife moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court for an enhancement, but her appeal was dismissed in 2018. She subsequently approached the Supreme Court seeking justice.

Arguments Presented

The counsel for the wife argued that the husband is a successful doctor earning approximately ₹1,60,000 per month from his profession, private practice, and rental income. It was contended that while the husband leads an affluent lifestyle, the wife was struggling to survive on ₹15,000 per month, an amount that had become grossly inadequate due to rising inflation.

On the other hand, the husband’s counsel raised several common defenses. They argued that:

The wife is "highly qualified" and capable of maintaining herself.
The husband is bearing the educational expenses of their son.
The husband's second marriage had also failed, creating additional financial burdens.

Court’s Observations on Maintenance and Dignity

The Supreme Court rejected the husband's contention that the wife’s educational qualifications should disqualify her from receiving adequate maintenance. The Bench emphasized that "sustenance" does not mean mere survival or "leading the life of an animal."

The Court noted:

"When a marriage breaks down, the obligation of the husband to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity does not come to an end merely on the ground that she is educated or has parental support. Post-divorce, the wife is entitled to live a life consistent with the standard of living she was accustomed to during the subsistence of the marriage."

The Bench relied on the landmark judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), which established that there is no "straitjacket formula" for fixing maintenance. The Court must consider several factors, including:

The status of the parties and their reasonable needs.
Whether the applicant had to sacrifice career opportunities for child-rearing or family care.
The husband's actual income and the "spiraling inflation rates."

The Court pointed out that even if a wife is capable of earning, it is not a sufficient ground to reduce maintenance unless she has a stable and sufficient independent income.

Final Order and Enhancement

The Supreme Court noted that the husband had previously agreed to pay ₹30,000 during mediation but later backed out. During the Supreme Court proceedings, both parties finally agreed to this revised amount.

Key directions from the Court:

Enhancement: The permanent alimony was increased from ₹15,000 to ₹30,000 per month.
Retrospective Effect: The husband is liable to pay this increased amount from the date the petition was filed in the Supreme Court (July 2, 2021).
Arrears: The Court calculated the arrears for the past 54 months (July 2021 to January 2026) to be ₹8,10,000.
Payment Schedule: The husband must pay the revised monthly amount by the 5th of every month starting February 2026. The arrears of ₹8.1 lakh must be cleared within four years, either in a lump sum or through quarterly installments.

Significance of the Ruling

This ruling serves as a vital reminder to the lower courts that maintenance is not a "charity" but a "sacrosanct duty." By specifically addressing the "educated wife" argument, the Supreme Court has protected women who may have the degrees but lack the actual financial means to maintain the lifestyle they were entitled to within their marriage. It also highlights that the financial status of the wife's parents is irrelevant when determining the husband's liability.

Case Details: Anamika Jain v. Dr. Atul Jain Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5220 of 2024)
Date of Judgment: January 28, 2026
Coram: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Justice R. Mahadevan