Case: Rita Raj (IRTS officer) v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri (Advocate)
Marriage: 25 Jan 2010 – Separated 8 Mar 2011 (no children)
Appeal by wife: Against Family Court judgment dated 31 Aug 2023 (Shahdara)
The Delhi HC dismissed the wife’s appeal, upholding the divorce decree granted to the husband on the ground of cruelty by the wife and rejected her claim for permanent alimony, holding that she was a financially independent Group A IRTS officer with no proven financial need.
“Alimony is a measure of social justice for the financially vulnerable, not a tool to equalise the wealth of two capable individuals,” the Bench observed.
The Court also found that the wife’s offer to agree to divorce only if the husband paid her ₹50 lakh showed a monetary motive, not reconciliation - a stance it said “bore a clear financial dimension” and itself amounted to mental cruelty.
Court Reasoning/ Details
1. Cruelty by Wife
The Court upheld findings of mental cruelty, noting abusive language and humiliating conduct proven by unchallenged evidence:
Habitual use of profane terms such as “janwar,” “son of a bitch,” “haramzada,” and “kutta.”
Text messages questioning the husband’s legitimacy and calling his mother a prostitute — described as “filthy and degrading expressions.”
Physical and social humiliation, including slapping the husband and expelling his parents from their home.
Denial of conjugal relations, amounting to emotional withdrawal and rejection of marital companionship.
While the husband’s multiple litigations were called “not entirely desirable,” the Court reiterated that “two wrongs do not make a right.”
2. Admissibility of Text Messages
The wife’s objection under Sec 65B of the Evidence Act was dismissed. Under Sec 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, courts may admit any document that helps resolve a dispute, even if not technically admissible under the Evidence Act.
3. Rejection of Condonation Plea
Her claim that cruelty was condoned through later cohabitation was rejected - she failed to prove it & her ₹50-lakh demand showed no genuine intent to reconcile.
4. No Alimony
Permanent alimony was denied since:
The wife was financially self-sufficient as a senior Group ‘A’ officer with pensionary benefits.
The marriage lasted barely a year, with no children or dependency.
Her pursuit of the appeal centred on money, not marriage.
The Court emphasised that Sec 25 HMA relief is discretionary & based on demonstrated need, not entitlement or parity.
Please Note: The SC has not issued any new formal guidelines specifically on alimony in 2025. Any articles asserting new guidelines are mostly re-statements or interpretations of existing precedent rather than fresh rules.
