The Supreme Court of India, while affirming a decree of divorce, has directed a man to pay Rs. 10,00,000 towards his daughter’s marriage expenses, underscoring that this is a natural extension of his parental duty, regardless of differences with his spouse. The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, upheld the decisions of the Family Court and the Delhi High Court that had dissolved the marriage on grounds of cruelty but added the financial direction for the daughter’s welfare.
The case involved an appeal filed by the wife against a Delhi High Court judgment dated December 18, 2023, which had affirmed the divorce decree granted to her husband.
Background of the Case
The parties were married on May 6, 1996, and have two children, a daughter born in 1997 and a son in 1999.
The legal dispute began in March 2009 when the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging mental cruelty. In response, the appellant-wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her husband and his family.
In the Domestic Violence Act proceedings, the Mahila Court initially ordered the husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 6,300 per month, which was later increased. The husband also moved an application during these proceedings seeking DNA testing of both children, claiming they were not his. The main DV complaint was eventually dismissed, but on appeal, an appellate court found the husband guilty of domestic violence and directed him to pay Rs. 2,00,000 in compensation. The amount was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 7,00,000 by the High Court, an order that was upheld when the Supreme Court dismissed the husband’s challenge on March 27, 2023.
Meanwhile, on September 20, 2019, the Family Court granted the husband’s petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. This was challenged by the wife before the Delhi High Court. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, affirmed the divorce, observing that “the parties had been in constant acrimony since the inception of their marriage, leading the wife to make repeated complaints to the police.” The High Court held that lodging false complaints amounted to cruelty and noted the parties had lived separately since 2009 with no reconciliation attempts.
Arguments and Court’s Analysis
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant-wife narrowed her claim, seeking only a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 towards the marriage expenses of their daughter. She submitted that her husband had multiple sources of income, including an aquarium shop and rental properties. The respondent-husband, appearing in person, denied these claims and stated he had “no earnings whatsoever.”
The Supreme Court bench noted that the marriage had effectively ended long ago, stating, “It is evident that the marital relationship between the parties has ceased to exist in substance.” An attempt at mediation before the Court also proved unsuccessful.
Given the long separation and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the Court found no reason to interfere with the divorce decree. However, it gave significant weight to the wife’s limited and “reasonable” claim. The Court observed, “Yet, the appellant-wife has been reasonable in limiting her claim before us. She has raised and supported both children largely on her own.”
Emphasizing the paternal obligation, the judgment stated, “It is a father’s duty to provide for his children, and meeting the marriage expenses of his daughter is a modest obligation.” The bench concluded that the respondent was capable of making this provision.
The Court held that this duty was independent of the marital dispute, stating, “We are of the considered view that the respondent can and should contribute Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for this purpose as meeting the reasonable expenses of his daughter’s marriage is a natural extension of his duty as a parent, irrespective of differences with the spouse.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with a specific direction, affirming the divorce decree subject to the payment condition. The respondent-husband was directed to pay Rs. 10,00,000 to the appellant-wife for their daughter’s marriage expenses on or before October 15, 2025.
The Court added a default clause, stipulating that if the payment is not made by the deadline, “the Registry shall revive these appeals for further consideration and appropriate orders.”
