1. Divorce petition under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act — Allegations of cruelty and desertion — Prior dismissed petition for annulment on grounds of fraud. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 256
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Sau. Jiya – Appellant
VERSUS
Kuldeep – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1301 of 2025 (SLP (C) No. 24893 of 2018)
Decided On : 31-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shakul R. Ghatole, Adv. Mr. Vishwadeep Mate, Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shakul R. Ghatole, Adv. Mr. Vishwadeep Mate, Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – A dead marriage can be given a decent quietus while protecting interest of divorced wife by granting her a decent alimony.
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Divorce – Cruelty and desertion by wife – Allegation of cruelty levelled by respondent against appellant mainly revolved around her threatening respondent and his family members of filing false and malicious criminal proceedings against them – Subsisting dispute between parties remains only concerning maintenance amount and both parties have agreed to grant of divorce – Considering fact that husband has already remarried, parties stayed together for only about two months after marriage, have no intention to continue their marital relationship, marriage between appellant-wife and respondent-husband has evidently broken down irretrievably, Court not inclined to interfere with decree of divorce granted by Family Court and confirmed by High Court – Both parties have agreed that a one-time settlement amount maybe awarded to appellant but failed to reach consensus on the amount due to a non-agreement on financial position of respondent – Husband has not been forthright in disclosure of his income and assets and is clearly attempting to escape his liability to support appellant post-divorce – Amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as one-time settlement in favour of appellant-wife shall serve purpose of equity and meet ends of justice – This amount shall cover all pending and future claims of appellant against husband. (Paras 15, 16, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeals arise out of impugned order dated 25.04.2018 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur in Family Court Appeal No. 37 of 2017 whereby High Court dismissed appellant’s appeal challenging decree of divorce granted by Family Court.
Findings of Court:
Considering total facts and circumstances of case, financial status of parties, their standards of living, fact that respondent has already remarried and also bears the financial responsibility of his new family, awarding an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as a one-time settlement in favour of appellant-wife shall serve the purpose of equity and meet ends of justice. As such, this amount shall fairly protect the interest of the appellant without imposing any punitive or unreasonable financial burden on respondent, thus aiming to safeguard interest of both parties.
Result : Appeal partially allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Husband alleges mental cruelty through false accusations — Wife denies cruelty and disputes husband's declared income for maintenance purposes. (Para 5 , 12 )
3. Marriage irretrievably broken due to remarriage — Husband's financial disclosures were not forthright — Maintenance based on actual earning capacity and standard of living. (Para 15 , 19 )
4. Permanent alimony is determined by balancing social and financial status, reasonable needs, and earning capacity to prevent destitution while avoiding unreasonable financial burdens. (Para 16 , 20 )
5. Divorce decree upheld — One-time permanent alimony awarded to the wife. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. What factors are considered when determining the quantum of permanent alimony in matrimonial disputes?
Factors include the social and financial status of the parties, reasonable needs of the spouse, educational qualifications, employment status, independent income or assets, the maintained standard of living in the matrimonial home, and the husband's actual financial capacity and liabilities. (Para 16 )
7. How does the court address a spouse's lack of transparency regarding income in maintenance proceedings?
The court will not acquiesce to a party attempting to escape liability through non-forthright disclosure of assets and income, and may rely on evidence provided by the other party to infer the actual financial position. (Para 19 )
8. Can a divorce decree be upheld based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage even if specific cruelty allegations are not re-examined?
Yes, where parties have no intention to continue the marital relationship, have stayed together for a very short period, and the husband has already remarried, the court may find the marriage irretrievably broken and uphold the divorce decree. (Para 15 )
ORDER
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeals arise out of the impugned order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur in Family Court Appeal No. 37 of 2017 whereby the High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal challenging the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court.
3. The brief facts of the matter are that the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 27.06.2012 at Nagpur as per Hindu rights and customs after a courtship of about four years and the appellant started cohabiting with the respondent at the matrimonial house. The respondent filed Petition No. A-943 of 2014 before the Family Court, Nagpur under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [HMA] seeking grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It was alleged by the respondent in the divorce petition that soon after the marriage, his father suffered some heart problem and was required to be hospitalized for about fifteen days during which the husband could not devote enough time to the appellant which became the cause of her anguish and displeasure. Resultantly, the appellant left the company of the respondent and went to her maternal home. It was further claimed by the respondent that he had made attempts to bring the appellant back to the matrimonial home who exhibited reluctance to return as she did not want to cohabit with him in a joint family. Therefore, it was stated that the parties stayed together for about only two months and there is no issue out of the wedlock.
4. It was also brought forth by the respondent that the appellant had earlier filed a Petition No. A- 1065/12 before the Family Court under Section 6 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 [FCA] read with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 12 of the HMA seeking declaration of marriage between the two as null and void on the ground that a fraud was played upon her and her family by the respondent and his family members whose sole intention behind the marriage was to extract money from the appellant’s parents. However, the said petition was dismissed by the Family Court vide its judgment dated 01.08.2014. The appellant neither preferred any appeal against the order dated 01.08.2014 nor joined back the company of the respondent-husband.
5. The allegations of cruelty levelled by the respondent against the appellant mainly revolved around her threatening the respondent and his family members of filing false and malicious criminal proceedings against them. The said allegations were vehemently denied by the appellant in her written statement before the Family Court wherein she stated that she treated her husband and his family members in a proper manner and always wished to cohabit with the husband but was rather constrained to reside separately as she was being subjected to physical and verbal abuse by the husband. The respondent also submitted that the appellant-wife has, during the cross-examination, suggested that he had an illicit relationship with the wife of his friend Gaurav Chawla and such a suggestion in itself would lead to mental cruelty upon the husband.
6. As per the appellant, the respondent had obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce dated 09.01.2015 from the Family Court against which she appealed before the High Court and the High Court had remanded the matter back to the Family Court for a fresh trial after hearing both the parties.
7. Thereafter, the Family Court, in view of the mandate of Section 9 of FCA, made attempts to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties which failed. Subsequently, the Family Court after framing the issues, hearing the parties, examining the witnesses and perusing the record, allowed the respondent’s petition on the ground of cruelty and dissolved the marriage between the parties vide judgment dated 31.07.2017. The Family Court held that even though a continuous separation of two years was not established and the ground o
