In a ruling that underscores the plight of a woman embroiled in a nearly 30-year legal struggle, the Supreme Court has criticized the judicial system for being “grossly injudicious” in handling her divorce proceedings, which it saw as unfairly favoring her estranged husband.
The woman, who married in 1991 and was deserted shortly after the birth of her son in 1992, faced repeated legal setbacks as her husband secured divorce decrees three times from a family court in Karnataka. Despite appeals and multiple revisions ordered by the high court, each judicial review ended with the same outcome—granting the divorce.
Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court, taking a firm stand against the family court’s actions, highlighted the mechanical and insensitive approach of the lower courts, which they believe showed a hidden prejudice against the woman. They emphasized the extreme cruelty the woman and her child endured over the years, aggravated by the husband’s neglect in providing financial support or educational assistance for their son.
The high court had last affirmed a decree that included a Rs 20 lakh alimony payment, while the family court initially set it at Rs 25 lakh. However, taking note of the continued hardships faced by the woman, the Supreme Court increased the alimony to Rs 30 lakh. It also decreed that the residence occupied by the woman, her son, and her mother-in-law should remain with them, barring the husband from disturbing their possession.
In a stern admonition, the Justices declared that any misuse of the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage to benefit one party at the expense of another, particularly in cases of evident wrongdoing, cannot be tolerated. They further granted the couple’s son preferential rights to any other immovable property owned by the father, recognizing the son’s legal right to maintenance and education.
The Supreme Court’s directives, which are to be enforced strictly, include a stipulation that the alimony be paid within three months, with an annual interest of seven percent dating back to August 3, 2006, the date of the first divorce decree. Failure to comply could result in the revocation of the divorce decree and potential legal actions against the husband.
