Clearly Attempting To Escape His Liability To Support Her Post-Divorce: SC Directs Husband To Pay ₹10L As Permanent Alimony To Wife
The Supreme Court partially allowed an Appeal of the wife against the Order of the Bombay High Court upholding the Family Court's Order.
The Supreme Court directed a man to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as a permanent alimony in favour of his wife.
The Court was dealing with a Civil Appeal filed by the wife against the Order of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench by which it dismissed her Appeal challenging the Decree of Divorce granted by the Family Court.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “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. This Court shall not acquiesce to such conduct of the respondent-husband. In pursuance of the affidavit filed by the appellant, it can be plainly inferred that the respondent has multiple sources of income including the rental income from tenanted premises.”
AOR Dharmendra Kumar Sinha represented the Appellant/wife while AOR Vatsalya Vigya represented the Respondent/husband.
Facts of the Case
The marriage between the Appellant (wife) and Respondent (husband) was solemnized in 2012 as per Hindu rights and customs after a courtship of about 4 years and the wife started cohabiting with the husband at the matrimonial house. Thereafter, in 2014, the wife filed a Petition before the Family Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), seeking grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It was alleged that soon after the marriage, the husband’s father suffered some heart problem and was required to be hospitalized for about 15 days during which the husband could not devote enough time to the wife which became the cause of her anguish and displeasure.
Resultantly, the wife left his company and went to her maternal home. It was claimed by the husband that he made attempts to bring his wife back who exhibited reluctance to return as she did not want to cohabit with him in a joint family. Hence, the parties stayed together for about only 2 months and there was no issue out of the wedlock. As per the wife, the husband obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce from the Family Court against which she appealed before the High Court and the case was remanded to the Family Court. The Family Court allowed the husband’s Petition and dissolved the marriage between the parties. Being aggrieved, the wife approached the High Court but her Appeal was dismissed. Challenging this, she was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “… it seems exaggerated to assess the appellant’s income from a salon at Nagpur to be an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) per month and the respondent’s submission in this regard does not sound credible. Further, it is an admitted fact that there is no issue out of the wedlock.”
Considering the financial status of the parties, their standards of living, the fact that the husband has already remarried and also bears the financial responsibility of his new family, the Court found that awarding an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as a one-time settlement in favour of the wife shall serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice.
“As such, this amount shall fairly protect the interest of the appellant without imposing any punitive or unreasonable financial burden on the respondent, thus aiming to safeguard the interest of both the parties. This amount shall cover all the pending and future claims of the appellant against the husband. The respondent is, therefore, directed to pay the said amount as permanent alimony to the appellant within a period of three months”, it further directed.
Accordingly, the Apex Court partially allowed the Appeal and upheld the impugned Order to the extent of finalising the grant of divorce decree to the parties.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 135)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Dharmendra Kumar Sinha
Respondent: AOR Vatsalya Vigya, Advocates Shakul R. Ghatole, and Vishwadeep Mate.
