Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Parvin Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Anju Jain – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 14277-14278 of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 21710-21711 of 2024)
Decided On : 10-12-2024
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 24 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Interim maintenance – Grant of – Parties stayed together only for around five years of marriage and even though they have a son out of wedlock, they have been staying separately for almost over two decades now – They have made multiple serious allegations against each other and have been conducting litigations – They have no intention of reconciling, their marriage exists only for namesake – Admitted long-standing separation, nature of differences, prolonged litigations pending adjudication, and unwillingness of parties to reconcile, are evidence enough to show that marriage between parties has completely broken down irretrievably – Marriage between appellant and respondent is ordered to be dissolved while exercising discretionary power under Article 142 – Issue of maintenance pendente lite is now infructuous with dissolution of marriage, but financial interest of wife still needs to be protected through grant of permanent alimony. (Paras 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29)
(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 24 – Permanent alimony – Quantum – Respondent is unemployed while appellant is a well accomplished banker who has worked in multiple senior roles at various banks over the years – Respondent is a home maker and has not been working in all these years, son lives with her, who has now completed his B. Tech. course, and they reside in a house owned by respondent’s mother – Appellant has paid for education as well as paid interim maintenance as ordered by Family Court – Son is now major and has also completed his graduation – Appellant is currently earning around Rs. 10 to 12 Lakhs per month – Appellant has legal obligation as well as financial capacity to maintain respondent after dissolution of marriage – Amount of permanent alimony should not penalize husband but should be made with aim of ensuring decent standard of living for wife – Mere completion of engineering degree does not guarantee a gainful employment, in these competitive times – Appellant has sufficient means to support his child – Amount of Rs. 1 Crore towards maintenance and care of son appears to be fair, which he can utilize for his higher education and as security till he becomes financially independent – One-time settlement amount of Rs. 1 Crore to be paid by appellant to respondent and his son within a period of four months. (Paras 34, 35, 36, 39, 41 and 42)
Facts of the case:
Vide impugned order, High Court dismissed MAT. APP. (F.C.) 226/2018 filed by Husband against the order of Family Court, in an application for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 along with all pending applications, with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-. By same common order, MAT.APP. (F.C) 120/2019 filed by Wife is allowed to the extent that the interim maintenance granted to Wife under Section 24 of HMA is enhanced from Rs.1,15,000/- to Rs.1,45,000/- per month from date of filing of enhancement application.
Findings of Court:
One-time settlement amount to be paid by appellant to the respondent and his son within a period of four months from the date of this Judgment.
Result : Appeals disposed of with observations and directions.
Key Points: - The Supreme Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage between the appellant and respondent due to complete and irretrievable breakdown (!) (!) (!) . - The Court held that the marriage had completely broken down given the long-standing separation (over two decades), lack of intention to reconcile, and prolonged litigations (!) (!) . - Permanent alimony should be determined with the aim of ensuring a decent standard of living for the wife and not as a penalty against the husband (!) (!) . - The Court fixed a one-time settlement amount of Rs. 5 crores for the respondent and Rs. 1 crore for the son to be paid within four months (!) (!) (!) . - The Court considered the husband's high income (Rs. 10-12 Lakhs/month) and assets, as well as the wife's unemployment and the son's need for future financial security, in determining the quantum (!) (!) (!) . - The Court dismissed the appellant's contention that the Family Court lost jurisdiction after the withdrawal of the divorce petition, noting that Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA are independent (!) (!) . - The Court emphasized that mere completion of an engineering degree does not guarantee gainful employment in competitive times, justifying maintenance for the adult son (!) . - The Court directed the Registry to draw a decree of divorce and the payment of the specified amounts as per the judgment (!) .
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Delhi High Court in MAT. APP. (F.C.) 226/2018 & CM APPL. 36723/2018. CM APPL. 4245/2021. CM APPL. 51379/2022, CM APPL. 52044/2022 and MAT. APP. (F.C.) 120/2019. Vide the impugned order, the High Court dismissed MAT. APP. (F.C.) 226/2018 filed by the Husband against the order of the Family Court, in an application for maintenance pendente lite under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 [HMA] along with all pending applications, with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). By the same common order, the MAT. APP. (F.C.) 120/2019 filed by the Wife is allowed to the extent that the interim maintenance granted to the Wife under Section 24 of the HMA is enhanced from Rs. 1,15,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand only) to Rs. 1,45,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand only) per month from the date of filing of enhancement application.
3. The parties were married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 13.12.1998 and have one son born from their wedlock on 28.05.2001. However, the marital relationship soured and the parties began living separately from January, 2004. Since the date of separation, the son has been residing with the respondent-wife. Subsequently, on 11.05.2004, the appellant–husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, before the Family Court seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the respondent, on 27.05.2004, filed an application under Section 24 of the HMA seeking pendente lite maintenance for herself and the son. This application was disposed of by the Family Court vide order dated 20.09.2004, directing the appellant to pay a cumulative sum of Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) per month, comprising Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the respondent and Rs. 3,000/- to the son.
4. Both parties challenged the Family Court’s order through separate appeals before the High Court. Consequently, vide order dated 21.11.2005, the High Court enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month, allocating Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the respondent and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the son. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA, seeking further enhancement of interim maintenance. In her application, she claimed an enhanced amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand only) per month, contending that the appellant’s income had increased significantly, exceeding Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) per month, inclusive of salary, perks, allowances, and bonuses. She further argued that the financial needs of both, her and the son, had increased manifold since the prior determination of maintenance.
5. During the pendency of the application, the appellant, in July 2015, voluntarily increased the interim maintenance to Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand only) per month. He agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the respondent, effective from the date of filing the enhancement application on 28.02.2009, and Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the son, effective from July 2015. However, the appellant contended that following the dismissal of his divorce petition on 14.07.2016 upon being withdrawn by him, the Family Court had become functus officio, rendering it incapable of granting any further relief under Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA. He also submitted that the provisions of Section 26 of the HMA do not permit granting of maintenance to an adult male child.
6. The respondent’s application for enhanced interim maintenance rested on her assertion of significant changes in circumstances since the last maintenance order, including the increased financial requirements of herself and the son. On the other hand, the appellant’s position focused o
(1) A dead marriage can be dissolved by Supreme Court by exercising discretionary power under Article 142 of Constitution.(2) Permanent alimony – Amount of permanent alimony should not penalize husba....
(1) A dead marriage can be dissolved in exercise of Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India.(2) Principle for determination of maintenance by way of one-time settlement appl....
Prolonged separation over 20 years establishes irretrievable breakdown (dead wood marriage), warranting divorce; permanent alimony of Rs.50 lakhs fixed balancing husband's finances and wife's/daughte....
The court held that the existence of sufficient grounds for divorce must be demonstrated, alongside appropriate permanent alimony reflecting the spouse's standard of living prior to separation.
(1) Enhancement of interim maintenance – Family Court does not become functus officio after withdrawal of divorce petition and it can decide applications filed under Sections 24 and 26 of HMA, 1955 e....
The court held that a marriage can be annulled under Section 12(1)(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act if obtained through fraud, particularly when one spouse conceals crucial facts such as prior relationsh....
Permanent alimony quantum under Section 25 fixed without formula, balancing husband's current/future income/capacity against wife's/child's needs, status, inflation, life expectancy; prior payments a....
Divorce – A dead marriage can be given a decent quietus while protecting interest of divorced wife by granting her a decent alimony.
A marriage may be dissolved when irretrievable breakdown is evident, especially where cruelty is established, and financial obligations for maintenance must be assessed equitably.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
