Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on December 10, 2024 observed that a marriage can be dissolved by it on the ground of irretrievable breakdown when the relationship is so strained that the marriage has succumbed to the long-standing differences between the parties and it has become impossible to save such a relationship.

"When the Court is convinced that there is no scope for the marriage to survive and no useful purpose, emotional or practical, would be served by continuing the soured relationship, and it finds that the marriage is completely dead, then it can exercise its inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale said.

In this regard, the court cited the Constitution bench decisions in Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan (2023), Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel (2024), Ashok Hurra Vs Rupa Bipin Zaveri (1997) and Hitesh Bhatnagar Vs Deepa Bhatnagar (2011).

The bench dissolved marriage of a couple solemnised in 1998 after noting that both the husband and the wife were living separately for over two decades and they cohabited for five to six years and a son was born to them.

"The relationship between the parties appears to be strained from the beginning and only further soured over the years. Reconciliation proceedings during the pendency of the divorce petition also failed," the bench said.

The matter before the court had arisen out of interim maintenance proceedings.

The court noted the parties had been litigating maintenance proceedings for a prolonged period, and there appeared to be no cogent reason to only deal with the issue of interim maintenance after twenty years of strained relationship and separation.

Since the parties had also mutually agreed for the dissolution of their marriage, the bench said, "We believe that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved by this court while exercising the discretionary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India".

It, however, noted that although the issue of maintenance pendente lite was now infructuous with the dissolution of marriage, but the financial interest of the wife still needed to be protected through grant of permanent alimony.

Dealing with the position of law with regard to determination of permanent alimony, the bench said that there could not be strict guidelines or a fixed formula for fixing the amount of permanent maintenance.

"The quantum of maintenance is subjective to each case and is dependent on various circumstances and factors. The court needs to look into factors such as income of both the parties; conduct during the subsistence of marriage; their individual social and financial status; personal expenses of each of the parties; their individual capacities and duties to maintain their dependents; the quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the subsistence of the marriage; and such other similar factors," the bench pointed out.

The court noted that the respondent wife was unemployed while the appellant man was a well accomplished banker who had worked in multiple senior roles at various international banks over the years.

The bench also recorded the appellant was currently working as the Chief Executive Officer of Vision Bank in Dubai and his estimated salary was about AED 50,000 per month which meant that he was earning around Rs 10 to 12 Lakhs per month. Though he had filed details of his DEMAT accounts from 2010, it was also revealed that he had investments of around Rs 5 crores at that time. Further, he had three properties worth approximately Rs 2 crores, Rs 5 crores and Rs 10 crores, respectively.

Furthermore, court noted that in compliance of its order, the appellant had paid Rs 72 Lakhs as arrears of maintenance in addition to the maintenance already paid by him.

"Considering the material on record, the totality of the circumstances and the facts of this case, a one-time settlement amount with provision for the respondent as well as the son, would be a fair arrangement. For the respondent, considering the standard of living enjoyed by her during subsistence of the marriage, the prolonged period of separation, and the appellant’s financial capacity, a one-time settlement amount of Rs 5 crores, appears to be just, fair and reasonable amount for the respondent to be paid by the appellant towards settlement of all pending claims also," the bench said.

The court also directed the man to pay Rs one crore towards maintenance and care of his son even though the son was a major and had completed his B Tech degree, for higher education and financial security till he becomes financially independent.

"It is also equitable and only obligatory for a father to provide for his children, especially when they have the means and the capacity to do the same. Even though the son is now major...in today's competitive world gainful employment may be feasible only after the child has pursued education beyond 18 years of age," the bench said.

Case Title: Pravin Kumar Jain Vs Anju Jain