Legal Digest | Why permanent alimony should be reasonable, without being a burden on the husband

In  Parvin Kumar Jain versus Anju Jain divorce case appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated the factors that must be kept in mind while awarding permanent alimony as status of the parties (social and financial); reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children; parties’ individual qualifications and employment statuses; independent income or assets owned by the applicant; standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home; any employment sacrifices made for the family responsibilities; reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife; and financial capacity of the husband such as his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.

The Court cautioned that the aforesaid factors do not lay down a straight-jacket formula but act as a guideline while deciding permanent alimony. In this case, the husband was employed in a foreign bank and earning around ₹12 lakh a month whereas the wife was a homemaker. Their marriage had broken irrevocably and thus there was no point in denying them divorce. The Apex Court ordered a generous ₹5 crore onetime alimony on the facts of the case which incidentally lays down the law that one has to pay a price for seeking exit out of the wedlock.  

Case 2: Insurance ombudsman’s order cannot be trifled with

In Bharat Dedhia versus Union of India case, the Bombay High Court recently castigated insurers, especially health insurers’ dealing with senior citizens’ claims for not honouring their policy commitments.  The insurance watchdog the IRDA had in 2017 instituted the ombudsman mechanism for quick redressal of grievances against the insurers.

The insurer in this matter condescendingly asked the insured to accept a measly ₹5 lakh in full and final settlement even though he had a cover for ₹25 lakh. Aggrieved, the insured knocked at the doors of the ombudsman who ordered payment of ₹27 lakh to a senior citizen who had undergone bypass surgery recently. The Court rightly observed that the insured cannot be made to run from pillar to post. The very purpose of putting in place an ombudsman an experienced insurer was to give quick redressal.  His order cannot be trifled with, necessitating the present writ petition. 

Case 3: Simple mortgage in contrast to mortgage by conditional sale

In the case of Leela Aggarwal v. Sarkar & Another, the Supreme Court categorically ruled that if the mortgagor allows the mortgagee to retain possession of the collateral, it does not automatically convert the mortgage into a simple mortgage, especially if the mortgage deed specifies otherwise. If the mortgagor fails to repay the loan, along with interest, within the stipulated time, the mortgage property is deemed to have been sold to the mortgagee.

In this case, the mortgagor appeared to be under a misunderstanding. She was living in the mortgaged property and therefore assumed that the mortgagee would be lenient and not enforce the mortgage through a conditional sale. However, she made the mistake of offering to repay the loan well after the due date, by which time, through her own act of signing the mortgage deed, she had already effectively sold the property to the mortgagee due to her failure to repay within the prescribed three-year period.

The moral of the story is — do not be under any illusion when signing a document that carries

Case 4: Death row convicts’ mercy petitions should not be kept hanging 

The Supreme Court on December 9 directed all states and union territories to constitute a dedicated cell for the prompt processing of the mercy petitions by death row convicts within the timeline laid down by the respective governments.

Even death row convicts need to be treated humanely. The sword of Damocles’ and the uncertainty are more harrowing and painful than the death itself which in a way is coup d’grace.  India has not abolished death penalty and it is awarded in rarest of the rare cases but it is inhumane to confine a death sentenced person in jail awaiting either execution of death sentence or a reprieve with a life sentence.

By the way, there is a raging debate on the desirability of such gubernatorial powers when the highest court of the land, no less, has considered the appeal against death sentence. This seems to be a relic of our colonial past.

—The author, S Murlidharan, is a Chartered Accountant and legal expert, who comments and interprets important court rulings and judgements. The views expressed are his own and personal.    

Read the previous Legal Digest columns here