This case is an appeal by Sangita Rani Shastry (the wife) from an amended judgment of modification issued by the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, which reduced her ex-husband Arun Kumar Shastry’s alimony payments from $1,000 to $580 per week as of December 5, 2023. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
By way of background, the parties divorced in February 2021 after 26 years of marriage. Their Separation Agreement, which merged with the divorce judgment, set alimony at $1,000 per week, calculated as about 20% of the difference between their gross base salaries at the time (wife: $104,000/year; husband: $360,000/year).
However, after the divorce, the Wife’s income more than doubled to $209,000/year, while the husband’s income decreased to $250,000/year after he voluntarily changed jobs. Consequently, the husband filed for a modification, arguing that both his decreased income and the wife’s increased income were material changes warranting a reduction in alimony.
The trial judge attributed the husband’s prior, higher income to him (since his job change was voluntary) and found no material change in his ability to pay. However, the judge found the wife’s increased income significantly reduced her need for alimony, constituting a material change in circumstances. The new alimony amount ($580/week) was calculated using the same 20% formula as the original agreement, based on the difference between the husband’s attributed income and the wife’s actual income. Bonus income was excluded, as in the original agreement.
On appeal, the Appeals Court found that the trial judge properly considered the parties’ intentions (using the 20% formula) and the statutory factors, including the marital lifestyle and the wife’s reduced need for support. The Appeals Court highlighted that the judge found that the parties’ reported expenses at the time of divorce and at the modification trial were somewhat overstated, but that a weekly expenditure of around $4,000 (including voluntary retirement contributions) was consistent with the marital lifestyle.
Further, the wife’s need for alimony decreased by about $1,100 per week due to her increased income. The modified alimony covered the same percentage of her need as the original order (about 39%). The only material change was the wife’s increased income, and the reduction in alimony was proportional to her reduced need.
The Court affirmed the modification and upheld the reduction in alimony, finding it consistent with the parties’ original intentions and the statutory requirements, and proportionate to the wife’s decreased need for support.