Word of a case has reached us from India.  A woman there asked the Bombay High Court to increase her alimony award granted in a divorce.

The court rejected her request because it found that she was already wealthy and therefore not entitled to alimony.

The court said that a woman who is able to maintain her lifestyle despite the estrangement doesn’t need alimony.

We have a similar concept in Maryland, although stated in different words.  Alimony is not intended to be a pension for life.

The objective of alimony is to help a dependent spouse time to become self-supporting even if that results in a lower standard of living.  Holston v. Holston, 58 Md. App. 308, 473 A.2d 459 (1984).

Parties who each had over a million dollars in assets were already self-supporting and therefore not entitled to alimony.  Hull v. Hull, 83 Md. App. 218, 574 A.2d 20 (1990).