Wife Can't Establish Career This Late In Life: SC Grants Divorce On Grounds Of Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage Subject To Payment Of ₹ 25 Lakhs In Alimony
|The Supreme Court reiterated the guidelines for invoking the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for a marriage that is “unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation.”
The Supreme Court granted divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage subject to the condition that the husband pays an alimony of Rs. 25 Lakhs to the wife while holding that despite her educational qualification, it is too late for the wife to establish a decent livelihood.
The Court held that it was concerned with providing adequate alimony for the wife to ensure that the wife was not left to fend for herself and both parties were not saddled again with the existing or further litigations.
A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held, “We cannot but notice that despite her educational qualification, it is too late in life to establish herself in a profession and employment to ensure a decent livelihood. We are of the opinion, looking at the facts of the case and on a bare reading of the allegations and counter allegations that come forth in the pleadings, that there is no salvation possible and the relationship is practically dead and emotionally irretrievable.”
Senior Advocate P. Vishwanatha Shetty represented the Appellant, while Advocate Nitin Tambwekar appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
An appeal was filed challenging the High Court's remand of the husband's divorce Petition, which was earlier rejected for lack of proof of desertion. The High Court held that cruelty was overlooked and that failing to prove desertion does not negate cruelty. It also found the Trial Court erred in assuming the marriage followed Christian rites, disregarding evidence proving the husband's Hindu identity. The case was remanded for further evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that the parties had separated after 4 months of their marriage in 1999. The Bench also noted that the parties had “spent a fair share of their life fighting in courts. Allegations and counter-allegations galore, are raised despite the fact that they have had a matrimonial life for just about four months.”
The Bench referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan wherein it was held that that once every effort has been made to save the marriage and there remains no possibility of reunion and cohabitation, the Court is not powerless in enabling the parties to avail a better option, which is to grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The Constitutional Bench noticed cases of “exceptional hardship where after some years of acrimonious litigations and prolonged suffering, parties jointly prayed for the dissolution of marriage and sought a waiver of the need to make a second motion; where it could be allowed when the divorce is inevitable on account of irreconcilable differences evident from the allegations and aspersions made against each other and in certain cases by reason of the multiple litigations making the continuation of the marital relationship an impossibility.”
The said finding was on the powers of the Court in a joint application for divorce on mutual consent.
“The Bench also dwelt upon the question whether Article 142 of the Constitution of India could be invoked, even upon the prayer of one of the spouses, when the Court is satisfied that there is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage notwithstanding the opposition to a divorce by the other spouse. It was held that though grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a matter of right, but a discretionary remedy which has to be exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that ‘complete justice’ is done to both parties,” the Court explained.
The Court noted that “the marriage was held way back in the year 1999 and the couple remained together for only about four months. Long separation has not resulted in an attitude of ‘forget and forgive’; but on the contrary has fueled into further acrimony. Though living apart, the bitterness has continued and escalated to spread over in the form of litigations. There are no children involved, fortunately, and both the parties are educated. The husband is working in a public sector undertaking and the wife though unemployed is a post graduate.”
Consequently, the Court held, “We are only concerned with providing adequate alimony for the wife to ensure that the wife is not left to fend for herself and both parties are not saddled again with the existing or further litigations. We, hence, on the totality of the circumstances direct that the parties be granted divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage; but subject to the condition that the appellant husband pays an amount of Rs.25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five lacs only) within a period of six months from today.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: X v. Y & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 195)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate P. Vishwanatha Shetty; AOR Irshad Ahmad; Advocates Shaik Mohammad Haneef, Vibhav Chaturvedi, Suneet Singh and Abdul Mannan
Respondents: Advocates Nitin Tambwekar, Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary, Prerna Singh and Dhruv Yadav; AOR Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru and Guntur Pramod Kumar