Rinku Baheti vs Sandesh Sharda

Held: Hardly any cordiality or meaningful marital relationship emerged from the marriage of the parties – Submission of the wife that she intends to continue her marital relationship with the husband cannot be accepted – Events stated deterred the husband from continuing with his marital relationship with the wife – It is difficult to fathom as to how the wife can reasonably expect her spouse to continue in a cordial marital relationship with her, when she has filed a criminal case against him, got a “Look Out Circular” issued against him, and even got him arrested – On one hand, petitioner sought the dismissal of application u/Art.142(1) on the ground that she wishes to continue the marriage, while in the same breath, she has demanded a huge sum of money as permanent alimony equalling the share received by the respondent’s ex-wife – Petitioner’s criminal complaint, among other things, has left incurable scar on the relationship between the parties – No chance for the parties to reconcile their differences and lead a normal married life hereinafter – Marriage has completely failed and also no child born out of the wedlock – Thus, fit case to exercise discretion u/Art.142(1), as such the application u/Art.142(1) is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – As regards, permanent alimony the wife sought equalisation of status not just with the respondent-husband but also with the ex-wife of the respondent, which cannot be an acceptable approach – Petitioner cannot simply claim an amount equal to what the ex-wife of the respondent had received or on the basis of the income of the respondent – Court has to not just consider the income of the respondent-husband, but also bear in mind other factors such as the income of the petitioner-wife, her reasonable needs, her residential rights, and other similar factors – Thus, her entitlement to maintenance has to be decided based on the factors applicable to her – Also duration of marriage, a relevant factor to be taken into consideration which was hardly three to four months – In the petition seeking divorce by mutual consent, respondent agreed to pay sum of Rs.8 crores towards full and final settlement of all claims of the petitioner – Family Court assessed Rs.10 crores as the quantum of permanent alimony, which is accepted – Additional amount of Rs.2 crores is liable to be paid to the petitioner to enable her to acquire another flat – Thus, sum of Rs.12 crores to be paid as permanent alimony to the petitioner by the respondent as a full and final settlement of all her claims on the respondent and his family – Also Rs. Three Lakhs to be paid as litigation expenses. [Paras 9.10, 9.11, 9.13-9.16, 11-13, 14.7-14.10, 15]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Fixation of Maintenance/Alimony – Factors for computing maintenance:

Held: No fixed formula for calculating maintenance amount – Should be based on a balanced consideration of various factors – Factors are illustrative but are not limited or exhaustive – Serious reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the other party – Law of maintenance aimed at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice and dignity of the individual – Wife entitled to be maintained as far as possible in a manner similar to what she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home while the parties were together – However, once the parties separated, it cannot be expected of the husband to maintain her as per his present status all his life – Wife cannot simply claim an amount equal to what the ex-wife of the husband had received or on the basis of the income of the husband. [Paras 14.3, 14.5, 14.7] Constitution of India – Art. 142(1) – Exercise of jurisdiction under – Cases of marital disputes – Grant of divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Power of: Held: Art.142 empowers the Supreme Court to exercise its jurisdiction to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it – Expression “such order as is necessary for doing complete justice” has a wide amplitude and scope and empowers the Supreme Court to make any order as may be necessary for doing complete justice in a case before it – Supreme Court would look into equitable consideration while passing such orders given the facts and circumstances of a case, so as to further the cause of justice – Power to grant a decree of divorce u/Art.142(1) is exercisable by the Courts when, in the opinion of this Court there is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Irretrievable breakdown is to be determined in each case, that the marriage has “completely failed” and there is no possibility of the parties cohabiting together as husband and wife, and that the continuation of the formal legal relationship of marriage is unjustified lacking in substance and content – Family Court is bound by fault-divorce provisions of HMA, has to appreciate evidence, however this Court while dealing with an application u/Art.142(1) can depart from such procedure by acting as a problem solver and balancing out the equities between the conflicting claims – Court is not required to look deep into the veracity of the detailed allegations made by the parties against each other to find as to who is at fault, but to take a holistic view on the relationship between the parties – Grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is on the basis of exercise of discretion for doing complete justice between the parties because there is no possibility of the parties cohabiting together and continuing their marital relationship – Divorce u/Art.142(1) cannot be sought as a matter of right. [Paras 6.1, 7, 8.11-8.15]

Judicial deprecation – Marital dispute – Abuse of process of law – Criminal proceedings between spouses and their impact on marital ties:

Held: Provisions in the criminal law are for the protection and empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women more for purposes that they are never meant for – In recent times, the invocation of ss.498A, 376, 377, 506 IPC as a combined package in most of the complaints related to matrimonial disputes is a practice condemned by this Court on several occasions – Wife and her family tend to use a criminal complaint with all the serious offences as a platform for negotiation and as a mechanism and a tool to get the husband and his family to comply with their demands, which are mostly monetary in nature – It is done in a fit of rage after a marital dispute, while at times it is a planned strategy in other cases – Unfortunately, it is not just the parties who are involved in this abuse of the process of law – Furthermore, Police personnel sometimes jump into action in selective cases and arrest the husband or even their relatives including aged and bedridden parents and grand-parents of the husband – Trial courts are hesitant in granting bail to the accused persons being swayed by the “gravity of the offences” mentioned in the FIR – Collective effect of this chain of events is often overlooked by the actual individual players involved, minor disputes between husband and wife tend to snowball into ugly prodigious battles of ego and reputation, eventually leading to the relationship turning sour to the extent that there remains no possibility of a reconciliation or cohabitation – Women to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands. [Para 10]