A Historic Shift in Spousal Support What the Supreme Courts Rakhi Sadhukhan Judgment Means for Alimony in India
For decades, alimony in India has been viewed primarily as a subsistence measure a minimal financial support granted to a dependent spouse, often insufficient to match the realities of modern living. But a recent Supreme Court judgment has shifted that perspective significantly. In a decisive move, the Court increased permanent alimony to a much higher amount, mandated a regular inflation-linked hike, and emphasized the dependent spouse’s right to maintain a standard of living similar to what they experienced during the marriage. This decision reflects a broader shift in how post-divorce maintenance is perceived not as a token gesture, but as a mechanism to ensure long-term dignity and stability.
One of the most transformative aspects of this judgment is the redefinition of maintenance itself. Instead of being treated as compensation for divorce, it is now framed as a means of preserving lifestyle continuity. This includes the comfort of housing, access to healthcare, the ability to participate in social life, and overall financial security. The Court made it clear that alimony is not about helping someone "get by"; it is about helping them continue a life they were once part of.
Another crucial shift lies in how courts will now assess the earning capacity of the spouse responsible for maintenance. Instead of narrowly focusing on current salary or assets, the Court emphasized looking at the payer’s entire earning history and potential. This broader view ensures that someone cannot understate their financial position in the short term to avoid long-term responsibility. The financial narrative of the marriage including lifestyle, expenses, and past income will now play a central role in determining fair support.
The inclusion of a structured 5% increase in alimony every two years marks a pivotal development. Inflation steadily reduces the value of money, and without such a mechanism, even a seemingly generous support amount can quickly become inadequate. By building in a periodic increment, the Court is future-proofing maintenance, recognizing that financial needs grow over time and that justice must evolve with economic reality.
Another critical observation from the judgment is the rejection of common defenses used to reduce maintenance obligations. The Court dismissed arguments based on the payer’s second marriage, additional children, or parental responsibilities. These, it stated, do not diminish the responsibility owed to a dependent former spouse especially one who remained unmarried and financially dependent. This sets a strong precedent: subsequent life choices do not erase past commitments.
The impact of this decision goes far beyond a single case. It creates a reference point for family courts and legal practitioners across the country. Moving forward, alimony cases will be evaluated not only on present ability to pay, but also on the lifestyle established during the marriage, the future needs of the recipient, and the requirement to maintain financial parity. It brings empathy and economic realism to the heart of family law.
Ultimately, this ruling reflects a maturing approach to spousal support in India. It acknowledges the emotional and economic costs of divorce, particularly for women who may have sacrificed careers or stability during marriage. It reframes maintenance as a form of partnership accountability not a concession, but a continuation of responsibility. In doing so, it opens the door to a fairer, more secure post-divorce life for dependent spouses across the country.