Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Pankaj Shukla – Appellants
Versus
Deepak Chaturvedi – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 13599-13600 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 19120-19121 of 2023)
Decided On : 13-11-2025
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 13 and 25 – Divorce – Desertion by wife – Parties have been living separately since nearly seventeen years now – Family Court made efforts to bring about amicable settlement between parties, but same did not succeed – No matrimonial bond remains between them and neither party has any real intention to restore relationship – Respondent- husband has remarried – In such circumstances, it would serve no purpose to perpetuate a legal relationship when matrimonial ties have long ceased to exist in substance – Court not inclined to interfere with decree of divorce granted – Considering financial standing of both parties, their respective means, long period of separation, and respondent-husband’s capacity, it is appropriate that a one-time lump-sum payment be made to appellant-wife by way of permanent alimony – Having regard to standard of living of parties and other attendant circumstances, amount of Rupees Fifty Lakhs would be just, fair, and reasonable as a one-time settlement – Respondent-husband directed to pay amount of Rupees Fifty Lakhs to appellant-wife within three months. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise out of impugned judgment and order dated 27th March 2023 in Misc. Appeal Nos. 1605/2019 and 1604/2019 passed by High Court of Rajasthan. Appellant-wife is challenging concurrent findings of courts below, whereby Family Court allowed respondent-husband’s petition for divorce, which High Court has upheld by impugned order.
Findings of Court:
Decree of divorce granted by Family Court and affirmed by High Court is upheld. However, respondent-husband shall pay the amount of permanent alimony.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:
The parties were married on 18th April 2008 according to Hindu rites and rituals (!) .
The respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging that the appellant-wife left the matrimonial home shortly after marriage to pursue her studies and later her law practice, and that the marriage was never consummated (!) (!) .
The appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights, asserting her willingness to cohabit with the respondent-husband (!) .
The Family Court allowed the respondent-husband’s petition for divorce and dismissed the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights; this decision was upheld by the High Court (!) (!) .
Both courts observed that the parties have been living separately since December 2008, nearly seventeen years, and that no matrimonial bond remains, with the respondent-husband having remarried (!) (!) .
The courts found that pursuing the marriage further would serve no purpose given the long separation and the absence of genuine intent to restore the relationship (!) .
Despite the divorce decree, the respondent-husband is required to pay permanent alimony to the appellant-wife. Considering their financial positions and circumstances, a lump-sum amount of ₹50,00,000 is deemed just, fair, and reasonable (!) (!) .
The respondent-husband is directed to pay the alimony amount within three months, and the appellant-wife is to furnish her bank details for the transfer (!) (!) .
The appeals are disposed of with the divorce decree upheld and the alimony payment ordered as specified (!) .
All pending applications are disposed of accordingly (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal and factual findings of the case, emphasizing the long separation, the finality of the divorce, and the financial settlement ordered.
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 27th March 2023 in D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 1605/2019 and 1604/2019 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The appellant-wife is before us challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, whereby the Family Court allowed the respondent-husband’s petition for divorce, which the High Court has upheld by the impugned order.
3. The facts giving rise to the present case, briefly, are as follows:
3.1. The parties were married on 18th April 2008 according to Hindu rites and rituals.
3.2. The respondent-husband alleges that the appellant- wife left her matrimonial home on 22nd December 2008 as she wished to study for the judicial services examination but later started her practice as an advocate.
3.3. On 21st December 2012, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Hereinafter, “HMA”] before the Family Court, seeking a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He pleaded that the marriage was never consummated and that the appellant-wife refused to join him at Pali as she wanted to prepare for the judicial services examination. Thereafter, she began her law practice and never returned. It was also alleged that she had concealed her actual date of birth before marriage, and that he came to know later that she was about two and a half years older than him.
3.4. In 2016, the appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the HMA, being Civil Misc. Case No.185/2016, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and pleading that she was ready and willing to cohabit with the respondent-husband.
3.5. The Family Court, vide its common order and decree dated 4th May 2019, allowed the husband’s petition for divorce and dismissed the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
3.6. The appellant-wife thereafter preferred D.B. Civil Misc. Appeals Nos. 1605/2019 and 1604/2019 before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
3.7. The High Court, vide the impugned order, has observed that it is an admitted fact that the appellant-wife left her matrimonial home shortly after the wedding and moved to her paternal home in Chippa Barod, District Baran to prepare for the judicial services examination. Further, the appellant-wife failed to show any efforts to resume co-habitation. The fact that she filed a restitution of conjugal rights petition under Section 9 of the HMA, four years after the respondent-husband filed the divorce petition, lacked bona fides. The fact of separation was thus found to be proved. It was further noted that in pursuing her professional career, the appellant-wife even contested and won the elections for the Bar Council Association of Chippa Badod City. In view of these observations, the High Court dismissed both her appeals.
3.8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-wife has approached this Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.
5. As far as the question of divorce is concerned, we find that both the Family Court and the High Court have rightly granted the decree upon a correct appreciation of the facts and evidence on record. The parties have admittedly been living separately since 22nd December 2008, nearly seventeen years now. The Family Court made efforts to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties, but the same did not succeed. It is therefore evident that no matrimonial bond remains between them and that neither party has any real intention to restore the relationship. The respondent- husband has, in fact, remarried on 3rd May 2023. In such circumstances, it would serve no purpose to perpetuate a legal relationship when the matrimonial ties have long ceased to exist in substance. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the decree of divorce granted.
6. At the same time, the respondent-husband continues to bear a duty to provide alimony to th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
