DEV

To determine the Rs 70 lakh figure, the court used a forward-looking calculation based on life expectancy. It noted that the wife is currently 32 years old and computed her likely financial needs for the next 38 years, using India’s average female life expectancy of around 70 years. Because she must rely solely on this capital and the returns it generates, the court held that the amount must protect her against inflation and help preserve the standard of living she experienced during the marriage. The dispute arose from a marriage solemnized in November 2019 under Hindu rites. Shortly after the wedding, the couple moved to Pune, where the husband worked as a senior software engineer. Their relationship soon deteriorated amid allegations made by both sides, eventually leading to a divorce. The husband claimed that from January 2020, his wife subjected him to mental harassment and filed false accusations involving alleged relationships with colleagues. He also stated that he suffered clinical depression and trauma due to threats from his wife and mother-in-law to falsely implicate him in dowry and sexual harassment cases, which led him to leave the marital home. In contrast, the wife alleged that her husband was involved in an adulterous relationship with a married woman in Pune and that he tried to force her into involvement with that woman’s husband. She further described him as being of loose character, alleging he had physical relationships with multiple women, and claimed he attempted to kill her causing her severe physical and mental distress. The husband filed for divorce in 2023 on grounds of cruelty, and the family court issued a divorce decree in 2024. advocate Ranjan Kumar Singh submitted that the appeal was filed because the original Rs 40 lakh alimony was allegedly excessive. He argued that the husband earns Rs 2.24 lakh per month, lives in rented accommodation in Pune, faces high expenses, and is responsible for supporting his aging parents therefore he could not set aside significant savings. After considering the submissions, the High Court concluded that the husband’s stable income was sufficient to support the enhanced alimony, emphasizing the wife’s right to live with dignity and reasonable comfort.

Using the Lalitavistara Sutra is really not right, you don't know that Sutras are classified in the Five Periods and Eight Teachings (Panjiao) system Avataṃsaka Āgamas / Nikāyas Vaipulya Prajñāpāramitā Then Nirvāṇa and Lotus The Lotus Sutra supersedes all the other sutras

MOHAN BHAGWAT - "We should support Inter-Caste Marriages to end caste discrimination"