Sau. Jiya vs Kuldeep

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

31 January 2025

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 1301 of 2025

Result

Partly allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale

Citation

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1398 : 2025 INSC 135

Acts & Sections

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Family Courts Act, 1984 Specific Relief Act, 1963

Issue for consideration

Issue arose as regards permanent alimony to be given by respondent-husband to appellant-wife, post-divorce.

Headnote

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13 – Divorce – Permanent Alimony – Marriage between the parties dissolved by the family court on the ground of cruelty, on a petition filed by the respondent-husband – Decree of divorce affirmed by the High Court – Matter before this Court, wherein it has come to the knowledge that the respondent has re-married, thus the subsisting dispute as regards the maintenance: Held: Husband has already remarried, 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 no inclination to interfere with the decree of divorce granted by the courts below – Parties failed to reach consensus on one-time settlement amount due to non-agreement on the financial position of the respondent – Evident from the perusal of the affidavits by both the parties that the husband not forthright in disclosure of his income and assets and is clearly attempting to escape his liability to support the appellant post-divorce – Court not to acquiesce to such conduct of the respondent-husband – Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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, amount of Rs. 10,00,000/as a one-time settlement in favour of the appellant-wife to serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice – Said amount would 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 – Impugned order to the extent of finalising the grant of divorce decree to the parties, upheld. [Paras 16, 19-21]

Order Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The instant appeal 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

View Subscription Plans →