The Supreme Court has set aside a decree of divorce originally granted on the ground of desertion, opting instead to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and ordered a one-time lump-sum payment of Rs. 25 Lakhs as a full and final settlement.
Background of the Dispute
The appeal challenged the order dated August 8, 2024, passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in MATA No. 279 of 2023, which had affirmed the Family Court’s decision to grant a decree of divorce.
The parties, both working professionals, were married on December 14, 2014, at Sambalpur, Odisha. At the time of the marriage, the appellant-wife was employed with Infosys and residing in the United States. She returned to India in February 2017 and began cohabiting with the respondent-husband in Bangalore. However, differences arose, and in 2021, the wife was deputed by her employer to the United States.
On May 9, 2022, the respondent-husband instituted proceedings before the Family Court, Sambalpur under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He sought the dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion, alleging that the wife had left the matrimonial home on the intervening night of January 24-25, 2020, and had not returned for a continuous period exceeding two years.
The appellant-wife contested the petition, asserting that she left the matrimonial home on January 19, 2020, to visit her brother due to a “hostile environment created by the respondent, including demands for money.” She further submitted that she had transferred Rs. 3,00,000 to the husband’s account on January 20, 2020, and denied the allegation of desertion.
The Family Court allowed the husband’s petition on August 5, 2023, granting a divorce on the ground of desertion. This decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments and Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, appearing for the appellant-wife, submitted that she was agreeable to a decree of divorce by mutual consent. However, he contended that the decree “ought not to be founded on the ground of desertion,” arguing that she had not abandoned the respondent but had travelled abroad for professional obligations while remaining open to communication.
Advocate Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, representing the respondent-husband, stated that the husband was also agreeable to the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and had no objection to the Court exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to modify the basis of the decree.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court noted that the parties had been living separately for a considerable period and that reconciliation efforts had failed. The Bench observed:
“It is evident from the record that the parties have been living separately for a considerable length of time. Efforts at reconciliation have not yielded any positive outcome, and both parties have expressed their unequivocal desire to bring the marital relationship to an end. In the circumstances, the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and there remains no scope for restoration of the matrimonial bond.”
To do complete justice, the Court set aside the decree based on desertion and dissolved the marriage by mutual consent.
Permanent Alimony
Addressing the issue of permanent alimony, the Court noted that both parties are “working and earning well for themselves.” However, to ensure finality to all claims, the Bench deemed it appropriate to settle the matter with a token lump-sum payment.
The Court held:
“Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the financial status of the parties, who are both working professionals, and other attendant factors, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs would constitute a just and reasonable amount towards full and final settlement, including permanent alimony to be paid within two months.”
The Court directed that the amount be deposited with the Registry, which the appellant-wife would be entitled to withdraw. Upon compliance, all pending civil or criminal proceedings arising out of the matrimonial dispute shall stand closed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Bhagyashree Bisi Vs. Animesh Padhee
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. … of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 25584 of 2024)
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1464
- Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Goel, Senior Advocate
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Advocate
