The Supreme Court has said that the strict provisions of law were for the welfare of women and it should not be misused as instruments of harassment, intimidation, or extortion against their husbands.
The top court also stressed that alimony is not meant to equalise the financial status of ex-spouses but rather to provide the dependent woman with a reasonable standard of living.
A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mitha observed a Hindu marriage was considered to be a sacred institution, as a foundation for a family and not a "commercial venture".
The bench observed the invocation of IPC sections including rape, criminal intimidation and subjecting a married woman to cruelty— as a "combined package" in most of the complaints related to matrimonial disputes— was condemned by the top court on several occasions.
"The women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands," it said.
The bench made these observations, dissolving a marriage between an estranged couple on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. The husband was ordered to pay Rs 12 crore as permanent alimony to the estranged wife as a full and final settlement for all her claims within a month.
"The provisions in the criminal law are for the protection and empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women more for purposes that they are never meant for," the court said.
The wife had claimed the estranged husband had a net-worth of Rs 5,000 crore with multiple businesses and properties in the US and in India, and had paid the first wife at least Rs 500 crore upon separation, excluding a house in Virginia.
"We have serious reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the other party. It is often seen that parties in their application for maintenance or alimony highlight the assets, status and income of their spouse, and then ask for an amount that can equal their wealth to that of the spouse,” the bench remarked.
The court asked, "We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?"
The bench also observed instances where the wife and her family have misused criminal complaints of serious offences as a bargaining tool, primarily to pressure the husband and his family into meeting their largely monetary demands.
The apex court also quashed the criminal cases filed by the wife against the estranged husband.
The top court's observations came amid the massive outrage of a techie, Atul Subhas, who alleged that his estranged wife and her family demanded Rs 2 lakh in monthly maintenance, later increasing it to an annual amount of Rs 3 crore.
