Advocates:
BIJO MATHEW JOY

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).

OF 2023

(Arising from SLP(C)No(s).17311-17314/2022)

NADINE APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THOMAS RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).

OF 2023

(Arising from SLP(C)No(s).21736-21744/2022)

THOMAS APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

NADINE RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Both these appeals arise out of a common orders in judgment

dated 28.02.2022 & 30.06.2022 passed by the Kerala High Court which

relates to the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Before this

Court the appeals @ SLP(C)Nos.17311-17314/2022 have been filed by

the wife-Nadine and appeals @ SLP(C)Nos.21736-21744/2022 have been

filed by the husband-Thomas. Both husband and wife are Christian

and were married in the year 2002. Out of the wedlock they have two

girl children. One is 18 years of age as of now and the other is 15

years of age. Wife filed a petition for divorce in the year 2013

before the Family Court, Ernakulam. Husband also instituted a

petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family

Court, whereas the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was

Digitally signed by

NIRMALA NEGI

Date: 2023.02.17

16:24:56 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

decreed which favour of the husband and the petition for

dissolution of marriage was dismissed. Both the parties went in

appeal before the High Court. The High Court granted a decree of

divorce in favour of the wife and dismissed the petition filed by

the husband, for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the parties

are here before us, in these two appeals. The Wife-Nadine though

(in Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) Nos.17311-17314/2022) seeks only alimony

which has not been given to her.

We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and two

orders dated 28-02-2022 & 30-06-2022. The grounds for granting a

decree of divorce are given in Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act,

hereinafter called ‘the Act’, which inter alia is “Cruelty”. The

findings of the High Court on this aspect are well considered and

there is no scope for interference on this aspect. We are in

agreement with the findings arrived at by the High Court on this

aspect. All the same the learned counsel for the wife-Nadine had

drawn our attention to Section 37 of the Act and would submit that

Section 37 of the Act has not been followed. Section 37 of the Act

reads as under:

“37 Power to order permanent alimony. [Where a

decree of dissolution of the marriage or a

decree of judicial separation is obtained by

the wife, the District Court may order that the

husband shall], to the satisfaction of the

Court, secure to the wife such gross sum of

money, or such annual sum of money for any term

not exceeding her own life, as, having regard

to her fortune (if any), to the ability of the

husband, and to the conduct of the parties, it

thinks reasonable; and for that purpose may

cause a proper instrument to be executed by all

necessary parties. Power to order monthly or

weekly payments. In every such case the Court

may make an order on the husband for payment to

3

the wife of such monthly or weekly sums for her

maintenance and support as the Court may think

reasonable: Provided that if the husband

afterwards from any cause becomes unable to

make such payments, it shall be lawful for the

Court to discharge or modify the order, or

temporarily to suspend the same as to the whole

or any part of the money so ordered to be paid,

and again to revive the same order wholly or in

part, as to the Court seems fit.”

Learned counsel has also taken us to the prayer made by the

wife-Nadine, where a lump sum alimony of Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs