Alimony
(noun) [English meaning from
thefreedictionary.com]
1. Law
: An allowance for support made under
court order to a divorced person by the former spouse, usually the
chiefprovider during the marriage. Alimony may also be granted without a
divorce, as between legally separated persons.
2. A
means of livelihood; maintenance.
Alimony [also
called maintenance; spousal support] is a legal obligation on a person to
provide financial support to his or her spouse before or after marital
separation or divorce. The obligation arises from the divorce law or family law
of each country. Traditionally, alimony was paid by a husband to his former
wife, but since the 1970s there have been moves in many Western countries
towards gender equality with a corresponding recognition that a former husband
may also be entitled to alimony from his former wife !!! In earlier days, in India,
divorce was a stigma. Now much is being
written about divorce being on the rise in India, sometimes accompanied by
hand-wringing about the egos and inflexibility of younger couples, who seem
less willing than their parents to stay in marriages they are not happy with.
In Western World, it is perceived that more separations occur for much less
pressing reasons !
Away, newspaper reports
suggest that there was no holding back in the glamour stakes from
the Manchester United WAGs at the glitzy Player of the Year Awards. Indeed this
year there were a series of bold, one might even say eye-popping, style
statements from the wives and girlfriends of the Reds first team. WAGs is an acronym referring to ‘wives and girlfriends’ of high-profile
sportsperson. The term was first used by
the British tabloid press to refer to the wives and girlfriends of high-profile
footballers, originally the England national football team. It came into common
use during the 2006 FIFA World Cup, whence
the Press gave increasing coverage to the socialising and shopping activities
of the English WAGs, who were based in the German town of Baden-Baden. It was
frequently suggested that England's exit from the tournament in the
quarterfinals was a result of such distractions. Prominent among them was spice Victoria Beckham, wife of then England
captain David Beckham.
This is a different news on landmark
hearing at UK Supreme Court on
‘ex-wives’- of their challenging divorce – not the separation itself but
the payouts, after their exes lied about their wealth. MailOnline reports that two ex-wives are set to challenge the
size of their divorce payouts in a landmark hearing at the Supreme Court after
their former husbands lied about their wealth. Divorcee Alison Sharland will
stand alongside Varsha Gohil at Britain's highest court next month as they
fight for bigger settlements. Both women are taking action amid claims their
ex-husbands were dishonest about the true extent of their finances while their
divorces were being thrashed out in court.
Alison Sharland accepted £10.35m from her ex-husband
Charles in the belief it was half his
fortune. Now she has won the right to ask for more at the Supreme Court. Family
lawyer Ros Bever, who is handling both cases, is quoted in The Times as saying:
'Both cases raise serious issues about how the courts should handle cases where
information shared with the court and used to agree a divorce settlement is
later found to be false of incomplete. 'We
believe the situation that both women find themselves in is unfair and that is
why we applied for permission to take their cases to the Supreme Court.
'These cases give the Supreme Court
the opportunity to provide much needed guidance on whether non-disclosure
vitiates a divorce agreement. At the moment it appears not to - but we hope
that ultimately justice will be done and will be seen to be done.' Mrs
Sharland, 48, originally agreed a £10.35million settlement in a deal that saw
her give up her claim to an equal share in her husband's software company. But
husband Charlie had lied about the value of his share in AppSense, and she then
claimed she was entitled to more. The
Court of Appeal found that Mr Sharland, 54, had deliberately hidden information
and lied to the court but refused to overturn the divorce settlement. The
Sharlands, from Wilmslow in Cheshire, married in 1993 and Mr Sharland founded
the software company AppSense in 1999. The couple, who have three children,
separated in 2010 and agreed to split their assets.
They could not agree over the value
of Mr Sharland's share of AppSense, which has grown to become one of the
biggest firms of its kind in the world with offices in Silicon Valley, New
York, Australia and across Europe. She eventually agreed to accept
£10.35million in cash and property and 30 per cent of the proceeds from her
husband's shares when they were put on the market. The deal was agreed on the
basis that they were worth no more than £32million. But within days of the
agreement an initial public offering on the stock market – which never took
place – valued the company at more than £460million, meaning his shares were
worth around £132million after tax.
Mr Sharland did not dispute that he
misled his ex-wife and an Appeal Court judge said his conduct was 'deliberate
and dishonest' but the court ruled that Mrs Sharland was bound by the agreement
she had signed and refused her appeal. Varsha
Gohil accepted £270,000 and the family Peugeot from solicitor Bhadresh Gohil in
2004 after divorcing him for alleged adultery and unreasonable behaviour. But
in 2010 he was jailed for ten years for money laundering after a court heard he
helped millionaire Nigerian politician James Ibori steal around £50million from
the oil-rich state he governed. In June
2012 a High Court judge agreed she could fight the case, and a hearing was
fixed for last year. But in March 2014 three Appeal Court judges unanimously
quashed that ruling and the hearing was cancelled. Not undone, Mrs Gohil later won permission to take her
case to the Supreme Court - where she will stand alongside Mrs Sharland.
In the previous hearing, Lord Justice
McFarlane offered Mrs Gohil his 'sympathy' but said it was 'simply not open to
the court' to decide in 2012 about an issue discussed in 2004. The case involving the two women will be
decided after a Supreme Court hearing in June.
With regards – S. Sampathkumar
26th May 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment