The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on November 13, 2025, has upheld a decree of divorce granted to a respondent-husband, citing the fact that the parties had been living separately for nearly seventeen years and that no matrimonial bond remained.
While affirming the concurrent findings of the Rajasthan High Court and the Family Court on the issue of divorce, a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the respondent-husband to pay a sum of ₹50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) as a one-time permanent alimony to the appellant-wife.
The appeals (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19120-19121 of 2023) were filed by the appellant-wife, challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s order dated 27th March 2023, which had dismissed her appeals against the Family Court’s 2019 order granting the divorce.
Background of the Case
The facts, as recorded in the judgment, state that the parties were married according to Hindu rites and rituals on 18th April 2008.
According to the respondent-husband’s allegations, the appellant-wife left her matrimonial home on 22nd December 2008, as she wished to study for the judicial services examination, but she later started her practice as an advocate.
On 21st December 2012, the respondent-husband filed a petition before the Family Court seeking a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). He pleaded that the marriage was never consummated and that the appellant-wife refused to join him at Pali as she wanted to prepare for the judicial services. It was further alleged that she began her law practice and never returned, and that she had concealed her actual date of birth.
In 2016, the appellant-wife filed a separate petition under Section 9 of the HMA, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and pleading that she was ready and willing to cohabit with her husband.
Findings of the Family Court and High Court
The Family Court, by its common order and decree dated 4th May 2019, allowed the husband’s petition for divorce and dismissed the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
The appellant-wife then preferred appeals before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The High Court, in the impugned order, upheld the divorce decree. The judgment noted the High Court’s observations that “it is an admitted fact that the appellant-wife left her matrimonial home shortly after the wedding and moved to her paternal home… to prepare for the judicial services examination.”
The High Court further observed that the appellant-wife “failed to show any efforts to resume co-habitation” and that her petition for restitution, filed four years after the husband’s divorce petition, “lacked bona fides.” It was also noted by the High Court that in pursuing her professional career, the appellant-wife “even contested and won the elections for the Bar Council Association of Chippa Badod City.”
Aggrieved by the High Court’s dismissal of her appeals, the appellant-wife approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court bench, after hearing learned counsel for both parties and perusing the record, first addressed the decree of divorce.
The Court found that both the Family Court and the High Court “have rightly granted the decree upon a correct appreciation of the facts and evidence on record.”
The bench noted that the parties have “admittedly been living separately since 22nd December 2008, nearly seventeen years now.” It also observed that the Family Court had made efforts to bring about an amicable settlement, but the same did not succeed.
“It is therefore evident that no matrimonial bond remains between them and that neither party has any real intention to restore the relationship,” the Supreme Court observed.
The judgment also recorded the fact that the “respondent-husband has, in fact, remarried on 3rd May 2023.”
Based on these findings, the Court held: “In such circumstances, it would serve no purpose to perpetuate a legal relationship when the matrimonial ties have long ceased to exist in substance. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the decree of divorce granted.”
However, the Court then turned to the issue of alimony, stating that “the respondent-husband continues to bear a duty to provide alimony to the appellant-wife so as to maintain her financial stability and reasonably secure her future.”
The bench noted that the appellant-wife had moved an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA before the Family Court, which was not granted. The Supreme Court, therefore, found it “appropriate to fix a reasonable amount as permanent alimony.”
After considering the affidavits of income and assets, the Court recorded that the respondent-husband is a self-employed Class-C contractor and proprietor of Khetlaji Constructions, while the appellant-wife is a practicing advocate.
Considering the “financial standing of both parties, their respective means, the long period of separation, and the respondent-husband’s capacity,” the Supreme Court deemed the amount of “₹50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to be just, fair, and reasonable as a one-time settlement.”
The respondent-husband was directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the appellant-wife within three months from the date of the order. The appeals were disposed of in these terms.
