The Supreme Court of India has upheld a decree of divorce granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, observing that the marriage between the parties had “broken down beyond repair.” While affirming the dissolution of marriage, the Apex Court enhanced the permanent alimony awarded to the appellant-wife from Rs 30 Lakhs to Rs 50 Lakhs, emphasizing the respondent-husband’s “heightened obligation” as a serving Judicial Officer to ensure fair financial security for his estranged wife and daughter.
The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed that “continuing the marital tie would serve neither the spouses nor their child; rather, it would only prolong hostility and impede their ability to move forward with dignity.”
Background of the Case
The appeal (Civil Appeal No. 14856 of 2024) arose from a judgment dated August 28, 2024, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The parties were married on December 6, 2008. At the time of marriage, the respondent-husband was undergoing training as a Judicial Officer, while the appellant-wife was practicing as an Additional Advocate General. A daughter was born to them on November 13, 2009. The couple has been residing separately since 2012, marking a separation period of over thirteen years.
The legal battle commenced when the respondent-husband instituted a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty. Although the Family Court at SAS Nagar, Mohali, dismissed the petition on April 11, 2023, holding that the allegation of cruelty was not proved and that the respondent-husband had subjected the wife to cruelty, the High Court subsequently reversed this decision. The High Court granted a decree of divorce and awarded Rs 30 Lakhs as permanent alimony, noting that it was not in the interest of the parties to reside together.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court, after interacting with the parties and perusing the record, noted that the relationship had become “deeply embittered and acrimonious over the years.” The Court affirmed the High Court’s view that the marriage had broken down irretrievably.
Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the Bench, observed:
“In these circumstances, we see no purpose in perpetuating a legal bond that has long ceased to have any substance… We therefore affirm the view that the marriage has broken down beyond repair, and that dissolution is in the interest of justice and in the welfare of all concerned.”
The Court also highlighted the paramount importance of the wellbeing of the couple’s seventeen-year-old daughter, stating that forcing the legal bond would only “prolong hostility and impede their ability to move forward with dignity.”
Enhancement of Permanent Alimony
While the Court upheld the divorce, it found the alimony awarded by the High Court to be insufficient given the status of the respondent-husband. The Court noted that the respondent is currently posted as a Family Court Judge and holds a responsible public position.
The Bench held:
“The respondent-husband is a serving judicial officer holding a responsible public position and is, therefore, under a heightened obligation to ensure fair, adequate, and dignified financial security for his wife and daughter.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court enhanced the permanent alimony to Rs 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), directing the amount to be paid within three months. This amount was declared as a “full and final settlement of all monetary and other claims” arising out of the marriage, closing all pending civil and criminal proceedings between the parties.
Directions Regarding the Daughter
The Supreme Court also upheld the specific financial directions issued by the High Court for the benefit of the parties’ daughter:
- LIC Policy Maturity: The entire maturity amount of the LIC policy purchased by the respondent-husband, approximately Rs 41,00,000/-, shall be deposited in the daughter’s account.
- Monthly Maintenance: A sum of Rs 30,000/- per month shall be deposited by the respondent-husband until the daughter is able to maintain herself.
- Marriage Expenses: The respondent-husband shall bear all expenses towards her marriage.
- Inheritance: The respondent-husband is prohibited from disinheriting the daughter from his estate.
