Supreme Court upholds divorce decree but directs Rs.10 lakh one‑time alimony to estranged wife

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale heard the appeal filed by Sau. Jiya challenging the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench order which had affirmed a Family Court decree dissolving her marriage with Kuldeep on grounds of cruelty. The issue before the Court narrowed to whether the impugned findings of cruelty and the decree of divorce should be interfered with and what monetary relief, if any, the wife should receive post-divorce.

The Court declined to reopen the factual findings on cruelty, noting that the husband had since remarried and that the parties had lived together for only about two months, concluding that "the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has evidently broken down irretrievably." The Court observed that the subsisting dispute related primarily to monetary relief and directed a one-time payment of Rs.10,00,000 as permanent alimony to the appellant, to be paid within three months. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "25. A two-judge bench of this Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), elaborated upon the broad criteria and the factors to be considered for determining the quantum of maintenance. ... The primary objective is to prevent the dependent spouse from being reduced to destitution or vagrancy due to the failure of the marriage, rather than punishing the other spouse. The court emphasizes that there is no fixed formula for calculating maintenance amount; instead, it should be based on a balanced consideration of various factors. These factors include but are not limited to: i. Status of the parties, social and financial. ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children. iii. Qualifications and employment status of the parties. iv. Independent income or assets owned by the parties. v. Maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial home. vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities. vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife. viii. Financial capacity of husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities."

Background The marriage was solemnised on June 27, 2012 after a courtship of about four years. The respondent husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in 2014 alleging that the wife left the matrimonial home soon after their marriage and that her conduct—threatening to file false criminal cases, levelling accusations of fraud and dowry demands, and making suggestions that impugned the husband's character—constituted mental cruelty. The wife had earlier sought a declaration of nullity on grounds of alleged fraud, but the Family Court dismissed that petition and the wife did not appeal that order. After an initial ex parte decree, the matter was remanded and the Family Court, after a fresh trial, granted divorce on July 31, 2017 on the ground of cruelty. The High Court dismissed the wife's appeal on April 25, 2018, upholding findings that her allegations were baseless and that her conduct, including pressing the husband to live separately from his joint family and imputing an illicit relationship without specific pleadings, amounted to cruelty.

On appeal to the Supreme Court the parties were referred to mediation but no settlement was reached. The husband disclosed his income by affidavit as around Rs.16,612 per month and claimed limited assets; the wife filed an affidavit alleging substantially higher income on the husband's part (including gym earnings and rental income) and asserted she ran a salon. The Court found discrepancies in the parties' disclosures and observed that the husband was not forthright. Given that the parties had no children, had cohabited only briefly and the husband had remarried, the Supreme Court did not disturb the divorce decree. It held that equitable considerations required a monetary settlement and therefore directed payment of Rs.10,00,000 as a one-time permanent alimony, stating that the amount would "cover all the pending and future claims of the appellant against the husband." The appeal was thus partially allowed to the extent of awarding alimony; the decree of divorce as upheld below remained intact. No order as to costs.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 135 (SLP (C) No. 24893 of 2018) Case Title: Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Counsel not named in the order] For the Respondent(s): [Counsel not named in the order]