No Purpose In Perpetuating Legal Relationship That Has Ceased To Have Meaning: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage; Asks Husband To Pay ₹1Cr As Permanent Alimony

The Appeal before the Apex Court filed by a wife arose from a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court pertaining to a matrimonial dispute.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “Years of acrimony and bitterness have defined their relationship, and despite the appellant-wife contesting the grant of divorce, we find that no marital bond survives between them. In these circumstances, there is no purpose in perpetuating a legal relationship that has ceased to have any meaning. Therefore, we find this a fit case to grant a decree of divorce using our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”

Factual Background

The marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2009. The appellant-wife has alleged mental and physical harassment by her in-laws, which led her to leave the matrimonial home. While living at her parental home, she gave birth to their son in 2010. The appellant-wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance and she also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Trial Court directed the respondent husband to pay Rs 5,000 per month for rent, water and electricity expenses and Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance for the appellant and Rs.5,000 per month as maintenance for their minor child plus a further Rs.5,000 for his education. The appellant-wife was given custody of their minor child under Section 21 of the DV Act and the respondent-husband was also directed to pay Rs 4 lakh as compensation for mental, emotional and physical suffering caused to the appellant under Section 22 of the DV Act.

The appellant-wife filed a Criminal Appeal seeking the right of residence in their shared household. The husband also filed a Criminal Appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed their appeals and upheld the order of the Trial Court. The Family Court in the Section 125 CrPC proceedings directed the respondent husband to pay Rs 2,000 per month to the appellant-wife and Rs 1,000 per month to their minor child in addition to the amount awarded in the DV Act proceedings. Criminal Revision Petitions came to be filed by both parties. The High Court, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appellant-wife’s Petition while allowing the respondent-husband’s Revision Petition. The wife’s application under Section 125 CrPC was dismissed and the order of compensation of Rs 4 lakh under Section 22 of the DV Act was set aside; however, the remaining prayers were dismissed.

Reasoning

On the issue of dissolution of marriage, the Bench noted that the relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down, and they have been living separately since April 15, 2010, for more than fifteen years. The Bench also took note of the failed attempt at reconciliation through the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.

It was further noticed that the respondent-husband is willing to pay an amount of Rs 1 crore as permanent alimony and as settlement of all pending dues. “Upon a careful consideration of all relevant factors, including the income and financial standing of the parties, and other attendant circumstances, we find the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) to be a just, fair and reasonable amount as permanent alimony and towards all pending dues. This amount shall be treated as a full and final settlement of all claims between the parties including those of the minor child represented by his guardian mother…”, the Bench held.

“However, this shall not preclude the respondent father from contributing for the child’s education”, it clarified while declaring that the marriage between the parties stood dissolved.

Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1265)

Click here to read/download Judgment