In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has determined that permanent alimony cannot be granted to a financially independent spouse. The court highlighted that alimony serves as a measure of social justice, not a means for financial gain or equalisation between capable individuals. A Division Bench, consisting of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, made this ruling while dismissing an appeal from a senior Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS) officer seeking alimony from her estranged husband, a practising advocate.

The couple, both previously divorced, married in January 2010 but separated within 14 months. The husband accused the wife of mental and physical cruelty, including abusive language and public humiliation. The wife denied these allegations and countered with claims of her own. The Family Court had previously granted the husband a divorce on grounds of cruelty and denied the wife's request for permanent alimony.

The High Court upheld the Family Court's decision, stating, "Judicial discretion under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be exercised to award alimony where the applicant is financially self-sufficient and independent." The court noted that the applicant must demonstrate a genuine need for financial support, which was not evident in this case.

The court also pointed out that the wife had demanded ₹50 lakh as a financial settlement to agree to the divorce, a claim she acknowledged during cross-examination. The judges remarked that the Family Court's conclusion regarding the financial motives behind her request was reasonable based on the evidence presented.

Additionally, the court found that the wife had used degrading language towards her husband, which constituted mental cruelty. Ultimately, the High Court ruled against granting permanent alimony, citing the wife's substantial income as a senior government officer and the short duration of their marriage without children.

The ruling reflects a growing trend in Indian courts to scrutinise high-value alimony claims, particularly when both parties are financially capable. This decision reinforces the principle that alimony is intended to support those in genuine need rather than serve as a financial entitlement for the self-sufficient.