Supreme Court Grants Divorce but Orders One-Time Alimony: Sau. Jiya vs. Kuldeep (2025) INSC 135

Date of the Judgment: January 31, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 135

Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Can a marriage be dissolved even if one party alleges cruelty, and what factors determine the amount of permanent alimony? The Supreme Court of India addressed these questions in a recent case, focusing on a couple whose marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Court, while upholding the divorce decree, also considered the financial implications for the wife, ordering a one-time settlement.

This judgment, delivered by a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, highlights the court’s approach to balancing the dissolution of a broken marriage with the financial security of the dependent spouse.

Case Background

The appellant, Sau. Jiya (wife), and the respondent, Kuldeep (husband), married on June 27, 2012, in Nagpur, following a four-year courtship. Shortly after the marriage, the husband’s father had a heart problem requiring hospitalization. This led to the wife’s displeasure and her leaving the matrimonial home to stay with her maternal family. The husband claimed that the wife refused to return, stating she did not want to live in a joint family. The couple stayed together for only about two months and had no children.

Prior to the divorce petition, the wife had filed a petition to declare the marriage null and void, alleging fraud and dowry demands by the husband and his family. This petition was dismissed by the Family Court on August 1, 2014. The wife did not appeal this order and did not return to her husband.

The husband filed for divorce, citing cruelty and desertion. He alleged that the wife threatened him and his family with false criminal proceedings. The wife denied these allegations, stating she was subjected to physical and verbal abuse by the husband. She also suggested during cross-examination that the husband had an illicit relationship with his friend’s wife.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Family Court initially granted an ex-parte divorce decree on January 9, 2015, which was later set aside by the High Court, remanding the case for a fresh trial. After a fresh trial, the Family Court granted the divorce decree on July 31, 2017, based on the grounds of mental cruelty, stating that the wife had made false allegations of fraud, dowry demand, and had assassinated the husband’s character. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur dismissed the wife’s appeal on April 25, 2018, upholding the Family Court’s decision. The High Court also noted that the wife was ready for divorce but was claiming a huge amount of money. The wife then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which deals with divorce. The Family Court had granted divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Supreme Court also considered the issue of permanent alimony, referring to previous judgments such as Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324] and Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1782] to determine the factors for deciding the quantum of maintenance. The Court also referred to Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which deals with the duty of the Family Court to make efforts to settle the dispute amicably. The Supreme Court also mentioned Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 regarding maintenance.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section outlines the grounds for divorce.
• Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984: This section mandates the Family Court to attempt to settle disputes amicably.
• Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section deals with maintenance for wives, children and parents.

Arguments

Husband’s Submissions:

• The husband argued that the wife had caused him mental cruelty by making false allegations of fraud, dowry demand, and by suggesting he had an illicit relationship with his friend’s wife.
• He also argued that the wife’s conduct in demanding he leave his family and reside separately amounted to cruelty.
• He submitted that he was a daily wage labourer and had a nominal income.
• He stated that he had remarried in 2019.

Wife’s Submissions:

• The wife denied the allegations of cruelty and claimed she was subjected to physical and verbal abuse by the husband.
• She argued that the husband had multiple sources of income, including a gym, an electrical engineering job, and rental income, totaling over Rs. 1,30,000 per month.
• She argued that the husband was not being truthful about his income and assets.
• She claimed that the husband had not been supporting her, despite obtaining a divorce decree.

Innovativeness of the argument: The wife’s argument was innovative in that she presented evidence of the husband’s multiple sources of income, including photographs and advertisements, to counter his claim of being a daily wage labourer with a nominal income. This approach demonstrated her efforts to uncover the truth about his financial status.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following:

1. Whether the divorce decree granted by the Family Court and upheld by the High Court should be interfered with.
2. What should be the quantum of permanent alimony to be awarded to the wife, considering the financial status of both parties.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on 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 Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324]* and Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1782]* for determining the quantum of maintenance. These cases provided a comprehensive framework for assessing various factors such as the financial status of the parties, their standard of living, and the need to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and both parties had agreed to the divorce. The court also considered the husband’s remarriage and the need to provide financial security to the wife without imposing an unreasonable burden on the husband. The court noted that the husband was not forthright about his income and assets, and it was evident that he had multiple sources of income. The Court aimed to balance the financial needs of the wife with the financial capacity of the husband, ensuring a fair and equitable outcome.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court placed more emphasis on factual aspects, such as the husband’s actual income and assets, as well as the circumstances of the marriage breakdown, while also considering the legal principles related to maintenance and divorce.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the divorce decree granted by the Family Court and confirmed by the High Court, stating that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Court, however, disagreed with the lower courts’ assessment of the financial status of the parties and ordered a one-time settlement of Rs. 10,00,000 to be paid by the husband to the wife as permanent alimony. The Court noted that the husband had not been forthright about his income and assets. The Court emphasized the need to balance the financial needs of the wife with the financial capacity of the husband.

The Court observed:

• “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.”
• “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.”
• “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.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the final order.

Key Takeaways

• A divorce decree can be upheld even if one party alleges cruelty, particularly when the marriage has irretrievably broken down and both parties agree to the divorce.
• The court will consider the financial status of both parties when determining permanent alimony, and the husband’s lack of transparency about his income will be taken into account.
• A one-time settlement can be a suitable way to resolve maintenance issues in cases of divorce, balancing the financial needs of the dependent spouse with the financial capacity of the other spouse.
• The court will consider multiple sources of income, including business income, salary, and rental income, when determining the husband’s financial capacity.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent-husband to pay a one-time settlement of Rs. 10,00,000 to the appellant-wife within a period of three months. This amount was to cover all pending and future claims of the wife against the husband.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the court may uphold a divorce decree and order a one-time settlement as permanent alimony, considering the financial status of both parties and the need for equitable distribution of resources. This decision reinforces the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive assessment of financial factors in determining maintenance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sau. Jiya vs. Kuldeep upholds the divorce decree, acknowledging the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Court also ensures the financial security of the wife by ordering a one-time settlement of Rs. 10,00,000, highlighting the importance of financial transparency and equitable distribution of resources in divorce cases. This judgment underscores the court’s approach to balancing the dissolution of a broken marriage with the financial well-being of the dependent spouse.

Category

Parent category: Matrimonial Law

Child categories: Divorce, Maintenance, Permanent Alimony

Parent category: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Child category: Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Parent category: Family Courts Act, 1984

Child category: Section 9, Family Courts Act, 1984

Parent category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Child category: Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

FAQ

Q: What does it mean when a marriage has “irretrievably broken down?”

A: It means the relationship between the husband and wife has deteriorated to such an extent that there is no possibility of reconciliation or living together as husband and wife.

Q: What is permanent alimony?

A: Permanent alimony is a payment made by one spouse to the other after a divorce, intended to provide financial support to the dependent spouse. It can be a lump sum payment or regular payments.

Q: How does the court determine the amount of permanent alimony?

A: The court considers various factors, including the financial status of both parties, their standard of living, the earning capacity of each spouse, and the need to ensure the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution.

Q: What is a one-time settlement in a divorce case?

A: A one-time settlement is a lump sum payment made by one spouse to the other as a final settlement of all financial claims in a divorce case, rather than ongoing payments.

Q: What if one spouse is not truthful about their income?

A: The court will take into account all available evidence, including affidavits and other documents, to determine the true financial status of each party. If a spouse is found to be dishonest about their income, the court may make a decision based on the available evidence.