Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Orders ₹2 Crore Alimony (15 July 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 15 July 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 530
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Can a marriage be dissolved if it has irretrievably broken down, even if there are no specific grounds for divorce under existing laws? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, dissolving a marriage and ordering a one-time settlement of ₹2 crore as permanent alimony. This judgment highlights the Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve marriages that are beyond repair. The bench comprised Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

Case Background

The marriage between Kiran Jyot Maini (appellant-wife) and Anish Pramod Patel (respondent-husband) took place on April 30, 2015. Within a year, on April 13, 2016, the wife filed a complaint at Police Station Mahila Thana, Gautam Budh Nagar, alleging cruelty, dowry demands, and other offenses under Section 498A, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The husband’s attempt to quash the FIR was unsuccessful. The couple has been living separately for the past nine years, and multiple attempts at reconciliation have failed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance. The Judicial Magistrate ordered the husband to pay ₹35,000 per month, which was later modified by the Additional Sessions Judge to ₹45,000 for the wife and ₹55,000 for her daughter. The husband challenged these orders in the Allahabad High Court, which referred the matter to mediation. After mediation failed, the wife filed a criminal application for non-compliance of the maintenance order. The Supreme Court eventually transferred the proceedings to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The Delhi High Court initially directed the husband to pay 10% of the arrears, and later 20%, rejecting the wife’s plea for full payment and attachment of bank accounts.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with cruelty to a married woman by her husband or his relatives.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Prohibits the giving or taking of dowry.
• Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Allows an aggrieved person to file an application seeking various reliefs, including maintenance.
• Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Provides for the grant of interim maintenance.
• Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Deals with penalty for breach of protection order or of an interim protection order by the respondent.
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: Grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

The Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution is particularly relevant, as it allows the Court to dissolve a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, even if such grounds are not explicitly provided under existing divorce laws.

Arguments

Wife’s Submissions:

• The wife argued that the husband has not paid any amount towards interim maintenance for the last 5 ½ years, disregarding the court’s orders.
• She sought attachment of the husband’s bank accounts to recover the complete arrears of ₹65,00,000 towards interim maintenance.
• She demanded a one-time settlement of ₹5 to 7 Crores to cover her maintenance expenses and future needs.

Husband’s Submissions:

• The husband contended that the wife is gainfully employed and has several assets.
• He argued that the wife has already received ₹40 Lakhs as maintenance for her daughter from a previous marriage.
• He expressed willingness to pay only ₹50 Lakhs as permanent alimony.
• He claimed that he has no obligation to maintain the wife’s daughter as he never adopted her.

The core disagreement was on the amount of interim maintenance and the husband’s obligation to pay. The wife argued for the full amount and attachment of assets, while the husband contested the amount citing the wife’s financial independence and assets.

The innovativeness of the argument by the wife was that she sought the attachment of the bank accounts of the husband to recover the arrears, which the lower court had rejected. The husband’s argument was innovative in the sense that he claimed that he had no obligation to maintain the wife’s daughter as he never adopted her.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband should be dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
2. What is the appropriate amount of permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife.

The court also considered the issue of the interim maintenance that was pending.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar, (2011) 5 SCC 234* to determine that the marriage could be dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown when it is impossible to save the marriage.
• The Court relied on Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri, (1997) 4 SCC 226* to determine that a marriage can be dissolved when it has perished due to long-standing differences.
• The Court relied on Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2022) 15 SCC 754* to exercise its discretionary power under Article 142(1) to dissolve the marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
• The Court relied on Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar, 2011 (13) SCC 112* to determine that there is no fixed formula for permanent alimony and that broad principles should be considered.
• The Court relied on Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288* to determine that permanent alimony should be granted considering social status, conduct of parties, lifestyle, and other factors.
• The Court relied on Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 32* for the comprehensive framework for determining the quantum of maintenance, emphasizing prevention of destitution.
• The Court relied on Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801*, Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199* and Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715* to reinforce the principles for determining maintenance.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the lower courts, and dissolved the marriage using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court directed the husband to pay ₹2 Crores as permanent alimony to the wife within four months. All pending cases were ordered to be disposed of accordingly.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• The long-standing separation of nine years between the parties.
• The failure of multiple attempts at reconciliation.
• The grave allegations made by the wife against the husband.
• The need to protect the wife’s financial interests post-divorce.
• The financial capacity of the husband to pay a reasonable amount of permanent alimony.
• The need to ensure a decent living standard for the wife.

The Court emphasized the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the need to provide a fair and balanced settlement to the wife.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the factual circumstances, applied its powers under Article 142, and determined a fair amount of permanent alimony.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them as the marriage was beyond repair and the parties had mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage. The Court aimed to provide a just and equitable outcome.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the long separation and failed reconciliation attempts.
• The wife needed financial protection after the dissolution of marriage.
• The husband had the financial capacity to provide a reasonable amount of permanent alimony.
• The amount of ₹2 crore was considered to be a balanced and fair amount considering the social and financial status of both the parties.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Thus, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and analysing the same in light of the considerations stated above, the marriage between the appellant -wife and respondent -husband is ordered to be dissolved in exercise of this Court’s powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”

“Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the social and financial status of the parties, their current employments as well as future prospects, standards of living, and their obligations, liabilities, and other expenses, a one -time settlement amount of Rs. 2 Crores would be a balanced and fair amount.”

“Consequently, the appeal s are allowed, the order s and judgments of the courts below are set aside, any pending cases be disposed of accordingly, and the decree of divorce be granted in exercise of this Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the application of Article 142 to the facts of the case, considering the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the need to provide a fair settlement to the wife. The decision is likely to have implications for future cases involving similar circumstances, where the Court may exercise its power under Article 142 to dissolve marriages that are beyond repair.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles, but it reaffirmed the existing principles regarding the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown and the determination of permanent alimony.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, even if there are no specific grounds for divorce under existing laws.
• When determining permanent alimony, the Court considers the financial status of both parties, their social standing, their lifestyle, and other relevant factors.
• The Court aims to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy due to the failure of the marriage.
• This judgment reinforces the principle that a marriage can be dissolved when it is beyond repair, and the Court has the power to provide a fair settlement to the parties involved.
• The decision serves as a precedent for cases involving similar circumstances, where the Court may exercise its power under Article 142 to dissolve marriages that are beyond repair.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The husband shall pay ₹2 Crores towards permanent alimony to the wife within four months.
• All pending cases, both civil and criminal, shall be disposed of accordingly.
• Parties would be at liberty to file certified copies of this order before the respective Courts where the cases are pending.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Supreme Court can exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown when the marriage is beyond repair. The judgment also clarifies the principles for determining permanent alimony, emphasizing the need to consider the social and financial status of both parties, their lifestyle, and the husband’s capacity to pay.

There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reaffirms the Court’s power to intervene in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Conclusion

In this case, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage between Kiran Jyot Maini and Anish Pramod Patel, citing the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. The Court ordered the husband to pay ₹2 Crores as permanent alimony to the wife within four months. This judgment reaffirms the Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve marriages that are beyond repair and provides clarity on the principles for determining permanent alimony in such cases. The Court also emphasized the need to protect the financial interests of the wife and ensure a decent living standard post-divorce. The decision serves as an important precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.

Category

Categories:

• Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Maintenance
• Constitution of India
  • Article 142, Constitution of India
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
  • Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
  • Section 23, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
  • Section 31, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
  • Section 3, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
  • Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):

1. What does “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” mean?
   Irretrievable breakdown of marriage means that the relationship between the husband and wife has deteriorated to such an extent that there is no possibility of reconciliation, and the marriage cannot be saved.
2. What is Article 142 of the Constitution of India?
   Article 142 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any case pending before it. This power allows the Court to make decisions that go beyond the existing laws if it is necessary to achieve justice.
3. How does the Supreme Court decide on the amount of permanent alimony?
   The Supreme Court considers various factors, including the financial status of both parties, their social standing, their lifestyle, and the husband’s capacity to pay. The aim is to ensure that the wife can maintain a decent standard of living after the divorce.
4. What should I do if I am facing a similar situation?
   If you are facing a similar situation, it is advisable to seek legal advice and understand your rights. You may consider filing for divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown or other applicable grounds.
5. Can the Supreme Court dissolve a marriage even if there are no grounds for divorce under existing laws?
   Yes, the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution when it determines that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation.