Alimony application must be for all citizens
The Supreme Court's recent order to establish a “fair and just” amount of 25 per cent of a man's salary as the benchmark for maintenance to his former wife is a humanitarian and practical approach. And this is how it should have been. The importance of the decision cannot be missed as this is the second that the apex court has taken on alimony this month. Earlier on April 7, the top court ruled that a woman, who is unable to sustain herself after divorce, is liable to receive alimony even if she willfully deserted her husband. In fact, issues over grant of alimony are not new. They have all the more gained importance in recent times due to the increasing number of couples seeking divorce. However, the entire procedure of securing maintenance has been tortuous, not only for the divorced woman but also for the courts.
The latter, which is already over-burdened with pending cases, faced criticism because there were no definite rules governing the amount or the procedures under which alimony must be granted. Various State laws were ambiguous and gave the over-burdened judges too much discretion. What this alimony reform attempts at is to set a standard procedure, or maybe a permanent alimony amount, that a judge can award in any given case that will be applicable across the country, in all courts. The affected women not only had to undergo severe trauma to seek maintenance charges, something that is obligatory to her, but there were delays too, which, in turn, led to big legal bills. Of course, not all women came up demanding alimony. While some were unaware about this privilege, others did not want to approach the court due to lack of resources. The problem of alimony had simply not kept pace with the changing times, with the changing status of women and also the rising number of divorce cases. Moreover, financial tussles over maintenance had made it difficult for both parties to move on with their lives. This reform will come as a relief for the family courts and also help both parties in a smooth transition, allowing them to lead a new, independent life.
The court's judgement came on a plea filed by a Hoogly resident, who claimed that the alimony amount, as fixed by the Calcutta High Court, was excessive. The High Court had fixed a maintenance charge of Rs23,000 per month. However, keeping in mind that the man had a new family to support, the apex court, while finding no fault with the High Court's order, said that the amount should be reduced by Rs3,000 as he had re-married and had a second child to support. While this is the case of a Hindu woman, the right to alimony for a divorcee must be absolute. No exceptions must be made, irrespective of a person’s religious affiliation. One has not forgotten about the milestone case of Shah Bano, where the Supreme Court ruled that she was entitled to maintenance like any other Indian woman, and granted a symbolic amount as alimony. However, the then Congress Government headed by Rajiv Gandhi, under pressure from Muslim fundamentalists, negated the apex court’s order by enacting the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and set aside the verdict. One hopes that our policy-makers will gather courage to re-address the issue.