LEGAL ISSUE: Granting divorce by mutual consent and determining permanent alimony.
CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Dispute
Case Name: Mansi Khatri vs. Gaurav Khatri
[Judgment Date]: May 19, 2023
Date of the Judgment: May 19, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 562
Judges: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Can a marriage be dissolved by mutual consent even when parties disagree on the amount of permanent alimony? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, ultimately granting a divorce by mutual consent and setting the alimony amount. This case highlights the court’s power to ensure complete justice in matrimonial disputes. The bench comprised of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with the judgment authored by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Case Background
Mansi Khatri (the petitioner) and Gaurav Khatri (the respondent) were married on December 12, 2016. They separated on October 29, 2021, without having any children. The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Family Court at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Simultaneously, the petitioner’s father filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the respondent under Section 498A, 323, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner also filed a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the Family Court at Lucknow.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 12, 2016 | Marriage of Mansi Khatri and Gaurav Khatri. |
| October 29, 2021 | Separation of Mansi Khatri and Gaurav Khatri. |
| 2022 | Respondent-husband filed Divorce Petition No.802 of 2022 in Family Court, Indore. |
| 2022 | Petitioner’s father filed FIR No. 0234 of 2022 at Police Station Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh. |
| 2022 | Petitioner filed Maintenance Case No. 749 of 2022 in Family Court, Lucknow. |
| December 7, 2022 | Supreme Court referred the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. |
| March 14, 2023 | Respondent expressed willingness for mutual consent divorce, but disagreement on alimony persisted. |
| May 4, 2023 | Judgment was reserved by the Supreme Court. |
| May 19, 2023 | Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on December 7, 2022, to explore settlement possibilities. Although mediation was unsuccessful, the respondent expressed willingness for a mutual consent divorce on March 14, 2023. However, the parties could not agree on the amount of permanent alimony. The petitioner demanded Rs. 70,00,000, while the respondent offered Rs. 25,00,000. The Court noted on May 4, 2023, that the only remaining issue was the quantum of permanent alimony, and both parties agreed to let the Court decide based on the available records.
Legal Framework
This case primarily involves the application of the following legal provisions:
- Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section deals with the grounds for divorce. As per the source, the respondent-husband filed the divorce petition under this provision.
- Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the offense of cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a wife. The petitioner’s father filed an FIR against the respondent under this section.
- Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the offense of voluntarily causing hurt. The petitioner’s father filed an FIR against the respondent under this section.
- Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the offense of assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The petitioner’s father filed an FIR against the respondent under this section.
- Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: These sections deal with the offense of giving or taking dowry. The petitioner’s father filed an FIR against the respondent under these sections.
- Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the provision for maintenance for wives, children, and parents. The petitioner filed a maintenance case under this section.
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The Supreme Court exercised this power to close all cases and grant a divorce.
The legal framework involves family law, criminal law, and constitutional law, highlighting the interplay of these areas in matrimonial disputes.
Arguments
The primary contention revolved around the quantum of permanent alimony. The petitioner sought Rs. 70,00,000, while the respondent offered Rs. 25,00,000. The Court was tasked with determining a fair amount based on the financial positions of both parties.
The petitioner’s arguments were:
- That she is financially dependent on her father.
- That she has no income.
- That she has no assets except for a Mangal Sutra and engagement ring.
- That she has monthly expenses of Rs. 25,000.
The respondent’s arguments were:
- That he has annual emoluments of Rs. 15,90,788.
- That his take-home salary is Rs. 87,538 per month.
- That he has various investments, including LIC policies, EPF, and PPF accounts.
- That he is paying a car loan EMI of Rs. 8,850 per month.
- That his parents are dependents.
The innovativeness of the argument lies in the fact that the parties agreed to let the court decide the quantum of permanent alimony, which is not a usual practice.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s Claim for Alimony |
|
| Respondent’s Offer for Alimony |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- What should be the quantum of permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner?
A sub-issue that the court dealt with was whether it could grant a divorce by mutual consent and close all other cases filed by the parties against each other.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Quantum of permanent alimony | Rs. 35,00,000 | The Court considered the financial status of both parties and determined a fair amount. |
| Granting divorce by mutual consent and closing all other cases | Granted | The Court invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice. |
Authorities
The Court did not cite any case laws or legal provisions other than those mentioned in the Legal Framework section.
| Authority | How Considered |
|---|---|
| Article 142 of the Constitution of India | The Court invoked this article to close all cases and grant a divorce by mutual consent. |
| Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | The Court considered that the respondent-husband had filed the divorce petition under this provision. |
| Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court considered that the petitioner’s father had filed an FIR against the respondent under this section. |
| Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court considered that the petitioner’s father had filed an FIR against the respondent under this section. |
| Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court considered that the petitioner’s father had filed an FIR against the respondent under this section. |
| Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 | The Court considered that the petitioner’s father had filed an FIR against the respondent under these sections. |
| Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | The Court considered that the petitioner had filed a maintenance case under this section. |
Judgment
The Court, using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, decided to close all cases filed by the parties against each other and granted a divorce by mutual consent. The Court quantified the permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner at Rs. 35,00,000, to be paid within six months. The Court also stated that if the alimony is not paid within the stipulated time, the FIR and the maintenance case would be revived.
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s demand for Rs. 70,00,000 as permanent alimony | Partially accepted; the Court awarded Rs. 35,00,000 as permanent alimony. |
| Respondent’s offer of Rs. 25,00,000 as permanent alimony | Rejected; the Court awarded Rs. 35,00,000 as permanent alimony. |
| Respondent’s willingness for mutual consent divorce | Accepted; the Court granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent. |
| Petitioner’s FIR and maintenance case | Quashed; the Court closed all cases filed by the parties against each other. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India* to exercise its power to do complete justice by closing all cases and granting a divorce by mutual consent. The Court considered the various provisions of law under which cases were filed by the parties against each other, but ultimately decided to close all those cases and grant a divorce by mutual consent.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and there was no possibility of reconciliation. The Court also considered the financial status of both parties to determine a fair amount of permanent alimony. The Court’s decision to invoke Article 142 demonstrates its commitment to ensuring complete justice in matrimonial disputes.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage | 40% |
| Financial Status of Parties | 30% |
| Need for Complete Justice | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the need to do complete justice in the case. The Court noted that the parties had suffered an irretrievable breakdown of marriage and that it was a fit case to exercise the power vested under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court also considered the financial status of both parties to determine the amount of permanent alimony.
The Court considered the arguments of both parties, the financial status of both parties, and the fact that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Court used its power under Article 142 to do complete justice and grant a divorce by mutual consent. The Court also fixed the permanent alimony at Rs. 35,00,000, which was higher than what the respondent had offered but lower than what the petitioner had demanded.
The court’s reasoning is encapsulated in the following quotes:
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the parties, in praesenti , husband and wife have suffered an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”
“In such view, in order to render complete justice, it is a fit case to exercise the power vested under Article 142 of the Constitution of India by closing all cases filed by the parties against each other and also granting a decree of mutual consent divorce.”
“The amount of permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner is quantified at Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs), to be paid within six months from today.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court can grant a divorce by mutual consent even if parties disagree on the amount of permanent alimony.
- The Court has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice in matrimonial disputes.
- The Court will consider the financial status of both parties to determine a fair amount of permanent alimony.
- The Court can close all cases filed by the parties against each other to ensure a clean break.
This case sets a precedent for the Supreme Court’s intervention in matrimonial disputes where the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and the parties are unable to agree on the terms of divorce. It highlights the Court’s power to ensure complete justice and provide a resolution that is fair to both parties.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the respondent to pay Rs. 35,00,000 as permanent alimony to the petitioner within six months. It also directed that if the payment is not made within this time, the FIR and the maintenance case would be revived.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a divorce by mutual consent and settle the issue of permanent alimony, even if the parties disagree on the amount. This case does not change any previous positions of law but reinforces the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring complete justice in matrimonial disputes.
Conclusion
In the case of Mansi Khatri vs. Gaurav Khatri, the Supreme Court granted a divorce by mutual consent and set the permanent alimony at Rs. 35,00,000. The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to close all cases filed by the parties against each other. This judgment underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring complete justice and providing a fair resolution in matrimonial disputes.
Category
Parent Category: Family Law
Child Categories: Divorce, Mutual Consent Divorce, Permanent Alimony, Article 142, Constitution of India
Parent Category: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Child Category: Section 13(1), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Categories: Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 354, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Parent Category: Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Child Category: Sections 3 & 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Category: Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
FAQ
Q: Can I get a divorce if my spouse and I agree to divorce but disagree on alimony?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court can grant a divorce by mutual consent even if you and your spouse disagree on the amount of permanent alimony. The Court will determine a fair amount based on your financial situations.
Q: What is Article 142 of the Constitution of India?
A: Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any case before it. In this case, the Court used this power to close all cases and grant a divorce.
Q: How does the Supreme Court decide the amount of permanent alimony?
A: The Supreme Court considers the financial status of both parties, including income, assets, and liabilities, to determine a fair amount of permanent alimony.
Q: What happens if my spouse does not pay the permanent alimony amount set by the court?
A: In this case, the Supreme Court directed that if the respondent does not pay the alimony within six months, the FIR and maintenance case would be revived.
Q: What does “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” mean?
A: It means that the marriage has broken down to such an extent that there is no possibility of reconciliation, and the parties cannot live together as husband and wife.