2025 INSC 135
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
VIKRAM NATH, J. AND HON’BLE PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.)
SAU. JIYA
Petitioner
VERSUS
KULDEEP
Respondent
Civil
Appeal No. 1301 of 2025 (SLP (C) NO.24893 OF 2018)-Decided on 31-01-2025
Family, Hindu Marriage
(A)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 – Hindu Marriage - Divorce on the grounds
of cruelty and desertion –
Challenge as to - Respondent has submitted that he has already re-married in the
year 2019 and the mediation proceedings as well as the submissions before us
were only aimed at reaching a consensus on one-time settlement amount - Even in
the signing off paragraph of the impugned order, the High Court had also
observed that even on the said day, the wife was ready for a divorce but she
was claiming a huge amount - Subsisting dispute between the parties remains
only concerning the maintenance amount and both the parties have agreed to the
grant of divorce - Do not find it
fitting to unnecessarily delve into the veracity of allegations of cruelty
levelled by the respondent against the appellant - Considering the fact that
the husband has already remarried, the present parties stayed together for only
about two months after the marriage, have no intention to continue their
marital relationship, the marriage between the appellant-wife and the
respondent-husband has evidently broken down irretrievably as such not inclined
to interfere with the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and
confirmed by the High Court.
(Para 15)
(B)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 – Hindu Marriage – One time settlement
amount – Determination of -
A bare perusal of the affidavits submitted by both the parties makes it evident
that the husband has not been forthright in disclosure of his income and assets
and is clearly attempting to escape his liability to support the appellant
post-divorce - This Court shall not acquiesce to such conduct of the
respondent-husband - In pursuance of the affidavit filed by the appellant, it
can be plainly inferred that the respondent has multiple sources of income
including the rental income from tenanted premises - At the same time, it seems
exaggerated to assess the appellant’s income from a salon at Nagpur to be an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per month and the respondent’s submission in this
regard does not sound credible - Further, it is an admitted fact that
there is no issue out of the wedlock - Considering the total facts and
circumstances of the case, the financial status of the parties, their standards
of living, the fact that the respondent has already remarried and also bears
the financial responsibility of his new family, find that awarding an amount of
Rs. 10,00,000/- (as a one-time settlement in favour of the appellant-wife shall
serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice - This amount shall
cover all the pending and future claims of the appellant against the husband.
(Para
19 and 20)
ORDER
Vikram Nath, J. :- 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 of desertion could not be proven, the ground of mental cruelty was
sufficiently established by the respondent as the appellant had levelled false
allegations of fraud, dowry demand, harassment and assassinated the husband’s
character.
8.
Aggrieved by the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court in the favour of
the respondent- husband, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High
Court. The High Court, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appellant’s
appeal and upheld the order of the Family Court, thereby affirming the divorce
decree. It was held that the appellant could not substantiate her claims
against the husband with regard to marrying her with a view to extract money from
her parents, which had also led to dismissal of her petition seeking annulment
of marriage, and thus conclusively proves that she had levied false and
baseless allegation of fraud against the husband and his family members.
Further, it was held that the appellant-wife’s conduct in pestering the husband
to leave his old family members and reside separately with the wife would
tantamount to cruelty. Lastly, it was also held that the wife has treated the
husband with cruelty by casting aspersions on his character during the
cross-examination by making suggestions of an illicit relationship between the
husband and his friend’s wife without any specific pleadings in this regard.
9.
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.04.2018, the appellant is before us.
10.
During the course of the proceedings in the matter before us, on 15.03.2024,
Learned counsel for the respondent-husband stated that his client has re-
married in the year 2019 and suggested that in view of the changed
circumstances, the parties may be referred to mediation for arriving at a
one-time lump sum amount which may be paid by the respondent- husband to
the appellant-wife. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife was not averse to
the said suggestion. Accordingly, without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties, they were referred to the Supreme Court Mediation
Centre. However, on 02.08.2024, we were apprised by the counsel for the parties
that they have not been able to reach a settlement and hence, the matter was
decided to be taken up on merits.
11.
In the meanwhile, the respondent-husband was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.
50,000/- to the appellant-wife in pursuance of I.A. No.208023 of 2024 filed by
the wife seeking the amount on account of expenses borne for physical
attendance during the mediation proceedings.
12.
During the contentions before us on 01.10.2024 with regard to the maintenance
amount, Counsel for the appellant stated that the monthly income of the
respondent is more than Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only)
per month, as he is getting about Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eight thousand
only) from Gym where he works and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)
from SPANCO. It was also submitted that the respondent has two houses in his
name and also has three wives. Whereas the Counsel for the respondent submitted
that the respondent is a daily-wage labourer as he works on contract basis as
Electrician, and therefore, he gets a very nominal amount only for the days on
which he gets work.
13.
In pursuance of the said submissions, we had directed the parties to place all
such facts on record by way of an affidavit because we found that only a meagre
amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month was awarded as
maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973[Cr.P.C.] , which
had also been challenged by the respondent by way of revision, which shows that
the respondent does not want to support his wife at all, even though he got a
divorce decree from the Family Court and also confirmed by the High Court.
Accordingly, the respondent was also directed to file his affidavit of
assets/income within four weeks.
14.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also both the parties
in-person and perused the material on record.
15.
Firstly, with regard to the divorce decree, as noted above, the respondent has
submitted that he has already re-married in the year 2019 and the mediation
proceedings as well as the submissions before us were only aimed at reaching a
consensus on one-time settlement amount. Even in the signing off paragraph of
the impugned order, the High Court had also observed that even on the said day,
the wife was ready for a divorce but she was claiming a huge amount. Hence, it
is evident that the subsisting dispute between the parties remains only
concerning the maintenance amount and both the parties have agreed to the grant
of divorce, therefore, we do not find it fitting to unnecessarily delve into
the veracity of allegations of cruelty levelled by the respondent against the
appellant. Considering the fact that the husband has already remarried, the
present parties stayed together for only about two months after the marriage,
have no intention to continue their marital relationship, the marriage between
the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has evidently broken down
irretrievably as such we are not inclined to interfere with the decree of
divorce granted by the Family Court and confirmed by the High Court.
16.
Now moving ahead to the contention with regard to the maintenance amount in
favour of the appellant-wife, both the parties have agreed that a one-time
settlement amount maybe awarded to the appellant but failed to reach a
consensus on the said amount due to a non-agreement on the financial position
of the respondent. On the question of permanent alimony and relevant factors
for consideration, this Court has laid out the factors in detail
in Rajnesh v. Neha[(2021) 2 SCC
324] which have been reiterated time and again in various
judgments and were also detailed in the recent case of Kiran Jyot Maini v.
Anish Pramod Patel[2024 SCC OnLine SC
17824] in the following terms:
“25. A two-judge bench
of this Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), elaborated upon the broad
criteria and the factors to be considered for determining the quantum of
maintenance. This judgment lays down a comprehensive framework for
determining the quantum of maintenance in matrimonial disputes, particularly
focusing on permanent alimony.
The primary objective
is to prevent the dependent spouse from being reduced to destitution or
vagrancy due to the failure of the marriage, rather than punishing the other
spouse. The court emphasizes that there is no fixed formula for calculating
maintenance amount; instead, it should be based on a balanced consideration of
various factors. These factors include but are not limited to:
i. Status of the
parties, social and financial.
ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent
children.
iii. Qualifications
and employment status of the parties.
iv. Independent income
or assets owned by the parties.
v. Maintain standard
of living as in the matrimonial home.
vi. Any employment
sacrifices made for family responsibilities.
vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a
non-working wife.
viii. Financial
capacity of husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.
The status of the
parties is a significant factor, encompassing their social standing, lifestyle,
and financial background. The reasonable needs of the wife and dependent
children must be assessed, including costs for food, clothing, shelter,
education, and medical expenses. The applicant's educational and professional
qualifications, as well as their employment history, play a crucial role in
evaluating their potential for self-sufficiency. If the applicant has any
independent source of income or owns property, this will also be taken into
account to determine if it is sufficient to maintain the same standard of
living experienced during the marriage. Additionally, the court considers
whether the applicant had to sacrifice employment opportunities for family
responsibilities, such as child-rearing or caring for elderly family
members, which may have impacted their career prospects.
26. Furthermore, the
financial capacity of the husband is a critical factor in determining permanent
alimony. The Court shall examine the husband's actual income, reasonable
expenses for his own maintenance, and any dependents he is legally obligated to
support. His liabilities and financial commitments are also to be considered to
ensure a balanced and fair maintenance award. The court must consider the
husband's standard of living and the impact of inflation and high living costs.
Even if the husband claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn,
given his education and qualifications, is to be taken into account. The courts
shall ensure that the relief granted is fair, reasonable, and consistent with
the standard of living to which the aggrieved party was accustomed. The court's
approach should be to balance all relevant factors to avoid maintenance amounts
that are either excessively high or unduly low, ensuring that the
dependent spouse can live with reasonable comfort post-separation.
27. Additionally, the
judgment addresses specific scenarios such as the right of residence under
the PWDV Act, the impact of the wife's income on maintenance, and the
needs of minor children. Even if the wife is earning, it does not bar her from
receiving maintenance; the Court should assess whether her income suffices to
maintain a lifestyle similar to that in the matrimonial home. The judgment also
considers the expenses associated with the care of minor children, including
educational expenses and reasonable amounts for extracurricular activities.
Serious disability or illness of a spouse, child, or dependent family member,
requiring constant care and recurrent expenditure, is also a significant
consideration. Key precedents cited to reach this broad framework
include Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [(2017) 15 SCC 801], Shailja v. Khobbanna
[(2018) 12 SCC 199], and Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [(2014) 16
SCC 715], which reinforce these principles and provide a sound, reasonable
and fair basis for determining maintenance in subsequent cases.”
17.
Coming to the instant case, an affidavit dated 04.11.2024 was filed by the
respondent-husband detailing his assets, income and expenditure. In the said
affidavit, the respondent has stated that he is working as an Outsource
Operator at one G.A. Digital Web World Pvt. Ltd. earning a monthly income of
Rs. 16,612/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Twelve only). He stated his
personal monthly expenses to be around Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand
only). He also stated that he has four dependent family members, i.e. his
father, mother, brother and the second-wife and incurs an expense of around Rs.
5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month on account of the dependent
persons. Other than this, the respondent stated that he does not own any
immovable property and does not have any other source of income, and had to
obtain a personal loan from the Bank to clear the amount of arrears of
maintenance as also to bear medical expenses of the dependents. The
husband, in his affidavit, also stated that the appellant is running a unisex
salon in Nagpur and earning an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)
per month from the said business but has failed to furnish any document to
substantiate such claim.
18.
On the other hand, the appellant-wife also filed an affidavit before us in
terms of the order dated 01.10.2024 and stated that the respondent is running a
gym in Nagpur since January, 2014 and is earning more than Rs. 80,000 (Rupees
Eighty Thousand only) per month from the said gym. It was also stated that the
respondent is working with SPANCO on salaried basis as an electrical engineer.
Further, it was submitted that the respondent is also earning around Rs.
30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) per month from the tenanted premises and
his total monthly income is more than Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One lakh Thirty
Thousand only). The appellant has annexed the photographs of the said gym,
advertisements made by the respondent pertaining to the gym displaying the
membership fees and photographs of the tenanted premises in order to
buttress her claim in the affidavit. Lastly, with regard to the number of
dependents on the respondent, it was submitted by the appellant that the father
of the respondent has retired from Maharashtra State Electricity Board and
receives pension. Further, the respondent’s brother has an independent income
and is living separately.
19.
A bare perusal of the affidavits submitted by both the parties makes it evident
that the husband has not been forthright in disclosure of his income and assets
and is clearly attempting to escape his liability to support the appellant
post-divorce. This Court shall not acquiesce to such conduct of the
respondent-husband. In pursuance of the affidavit filed by the appellant, it
can be plainly inferred that the respondent has multiple sources of income
including the rental income from tenanted premises. At the same time, it seems
exaggerated to assess the appellant’s income from a salon at Nagpur to be an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) per month and the respondent’s
submission in this regard does not sound credible. Further, it is
an admitted fact that there is no issue out of the wedlock.
20.
Therefore, considering the total facts and circumstances of the case, the
financial status of the parties, their standards of living, the fact that the
respondent has already remarried and also bears the financial responsibility of
his new family, we find that awarding an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs only) as a one-time settlement in favour of the appellant-wife shall
serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice. As such, this amount
shall fairly protect the interest of the appellant without imposing any punitive
or unreasonable financial burden on the respondent, thus aiming to safeguard
the interest of both the parties. This amount shall cover all the pending and
future claims of the appellant against the husband. The respondent is,
therefore, directed to pay the said amount as permanent alimony to the
appellant within a period of three months.
21.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is partially allowed in terms of the above
directions, the
impugned
order dated 25.04.2018 is upheld to the extent of finalising the grant of
divorce decree to the parties.
22.
No order as to costs.
23.
Pending Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
------