In a high-net-worth divorce, the difficult question is rarely whether one spouse can pay maintenance. The real dispute is usually about how much is reasonable.
A spouse may have substantial salary income, business interests, investments, properties and other assets, while the other spouse may have little independent income but may have become accustomed to a particular standard of living during the marriage. Courts therefore do not simply apply a percentage to the higher-earning spouse’s salary.
Indian law does not prescribe a mathematical formula for permanent alimony. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the amount depends on the facts of each case. The recent decision in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel reinforces this position, particularly in disputes involving substantial financial resources.
The starting point: there is no fixed formula
For marriages governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 deals with maintenance during the matrimonial proceeding, while Section 25 concerns permanent alimony and maintenance. Section 24 permits the court to award a reasonable monthly amount where either spouse lacks sufficient independent income for support and litigation expenses. Section 25 permits an order for permanent alimony at the time of the decree or subsequently, subject to the statutory conditions.
Neither provision prescribes a fixed percentage of the other spouse’s income.
This is important because the frequently quoted 25% figure is not a statutory rule. In Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, the Supreme Court considered 25% of the husband's net salary to be a reasonable benchmark on the facts before it, following Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari. But the Court also stressed that permanent alimony must depend on the factual circumstances and should be consistent with the parties’ status and the paying spouse’s capacity.
That benchmark becomes even less suitable as a mechanical calculation in high-net-worth cases.
What courts actually examine
The Supreme Court’s framework in Rajnesh v. Neha requires a broad assessment rather than a salary-based calculation. Relevant considerations include the parties’ social and financial status, their reasonable needs, qualifications and employment, independent income and assets, the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities, litigation expenses, and the paying spouse’s income, liabilities and other maintenance obligations.
1. The standard of living during marriage
Maintenance is not intended merely to ensure survival.
The court considers the lifestyle reasonably enjoyed during the marriage, particularly where there is a significant disparity between the parties’ financial circumstances. Housing, domestic help, education, travel, healthcare and other recurring expenses may therefore become relevant, depending on the evidence.
At the same time, a claim for maintenance cannot simply reproduce every luxury expenditure of the matrimonial household. The objective is a fair and reasonable post-separation standard of living, not an automatic transfer of the entire lifestyle or wealth of the higher-earning spouse.
2. Income is broader than a monthly salary
This is particularly significant for founders, entrepreneurs, professionals and business families.
A court may need to examine salary, professional income, business interests, dividends, rental income, investments and other financial resources. The existence of substantial assets may also matter even where those assets do not generate regular monthly income.
That is why the financial disclosure process is central to maintenance litigation. In Rajnesh v. Neha, the Supreme Court directed parties in maintenance proceedings to file affidavits disclosing assets, liabilities, income and expenditure. The Court's directions were intended to make financial assessment more transparent and consistent.
What happens when the claimant also earns?
A spouse’s independent income does not automatically eliminate the right to maintenance.
The question is whether that income and the spouse’s assets are sufficient to maintain a lifestyle reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage, after considering the circumstances of the particular case.
The Supreme Court reiterated this approach in Kiran Jyot Maini. The Court identified independent income and assets as relevant factors but emphasised that the overall assessment must remain balanced. The objective is to prevent financial hardship without turning maintenance into a punitive award.
This distinction is particularly important where both spouses are highly educated or professionally successful but their incomes are substantially unequal.
High net worth does not mean unlimited alimony
A common misconception is that a wealthy spouse’s ability to pay automatically justifies a very large maintenance award. That is not the law.
In Kiran Jyot Maini, the Supreme Court observed that the amount claimed was exceptionally high while the amount offered was insufficient when the broader maintenance factors were considered. The Court ultimately assessed the parties’ financial positions and awarded a one-time settlement, illustrating that even substantial wealth does not remove the need for a fact-specific and proportionate assessment.
The paying spouse’s own reasonable expenses, existing dependants, liabilities and other legal obligations remain relevant. Conversely, artificially minimising income or transferring assets merely to reduce apparent financial capacity can undermine the credibility of the financial disclosure.
Permanent alimony can be a lump sum
“Alimony” does not necessarily mean a monthly payment indefinitely.
Section 25 permits the court to order permanent alimony as a gross sum or as a monthly or periodical sum, having regard to the respondent’s income and other property, the applicant’s income and other property, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case.
A lump-sum settlement may be particularly practical in high-value matrimonial disputes where the parties want a clean financial break. But its amount still has to be justified by the relevant circumstances rather than by a predetermined multiplier of salary.
The practical lesson for high-net-worth divorces
For both sides, the strongest case is usually built around evidence, not headline wealth.
The claimant should establish actual needs, the matrimonial standard of living, career sacrifices, independent resources and future financial requirements. The paying spouse should provide a complete picture of income, assets, liabilities, dependants and reasonable expenses rather than relying solely on a salary figure.
The court’s task is ultimately one of balancing. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, maintenance should be fair and reasonable: neither so high that it becomes oppressive nor so low that it defeats the purpose of maintenance.
For high-net-worth divorces, therefore, the better question is not “What percentage of the husband’s income is the wife entitled to?” It is: What financial arrangement fairly reflects the parties’ circumstances, needs, resources and marital standard of living, without becoming either punitive or inadequate?
That is the approach Indian courts are actually applying.