Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently upheld a man's divorce on grounds of mental cruelty, noting that his wife, who lived with him for only two months, had made false allegations of fraud, dowry demands, harassment, and character assassination.

However, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale partially allowed the woman’s appeal against the Bombay High Court’s 2018 judgment and directed the husband to pay Rs 10 lakh as a one-time settlement.

"Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case, the financial status of the parties, their standards of living, the fact that the respondent (man) has already remarried and also bears the financial responsibility of his new family, we find that awarding an amount of Rs 10,00,000 as a one-time settlement in favour of the appellant-wife shall serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice," the bench said.

After four years of courtship, the parties got married in 2012.

However, in 2014, the man filed a petition before the Family Court, Nagpur under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He alleged soon after the marriage, his father suffered some heart problem and was required to be hospitalised for about 15 days during which he could not devote enough time to his wife which became the cause of her anguish and displeasure.

Resultantly, she left for her maternal home and exhibited reluctance to return despite several attempts as she did not want to cohabit with him in a joint family. The man stated the parties stayed together for about only two months and there was no issue out of the wedlock.

The woman separately approached the family court, seeking declaration of marriage between the two as null and void on the ground that a fraud was played upon her and her family by the husband and his family members with a sole intention to extract money from her parents. However, the said petition was dismissed by the family court in 2014. The appellant neither preferred any appeal against the order nor joined back the company of the respondent-husband.

The man made the allegations of cruelty for threatening his family members of filing false and malicious criminal proceedings against them, though the woman vehemently denied it. The man also submitted that the appellant-wife, during the cross-examination, suggested that he had an illicit relationship with the wife of his friend and such a suggestion in itself would lead to mental cruelty upon him.

The woman claimed the man obtained an ex parte decree of divorce in 2015 which was challenged before the high court, resulting into fresh examination of the matter.

The family court, however, in 2017 dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty, which held that even though a continuous separation of two years was not established and the ground of desertion could not be proven, the ground of mental cruelty was sufficiently established by the man as the wife had levelled false allegations of fraud, dowry demand, harassment and assassinated the husband’s character.

Upon the woman's appeal, the high court in 2018 held that she had levied false and baseless allegation of fraud against the husband and his family members. Further, it also held that the wife’s conduct in pestering the husband to leave his old family members and reside separately with her would tantamount to cruelty. It also found that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty by casting aspersions on his character during the cross-examination by making suggestions of an illicit relationship between the husband and his friend’s wife.

On the woman's appeal before the apex court, the man said that he had remarried in 2018 and in view of the changed circumstances, the parties could be referred to mediation for one time settlement. However, the parties could not reach a settlement.

During the arguments, the woman claimed the man's total earnings were more than Rs 1.30 lakh per month and had two houses and three wives. The man, on the other hand, submitted that he was a daily-wage laborer as he worked on a contract basis as Electrician, and therefore, he used to get a very nominal amount only for the days on which he got work. The man claimed the woman earned more than Rs two lakh per month from a Unisex salon.

The bench, for its part, said it was not inclined to interfere with the decree of divorce granted by the family court and confirmed by the high court as the marriage between the parties had evidently broken down irretrievably.

"It is evident that the subsisting dispute between the parties remains only concerning the maintenance amount and both the parties have agreed to the grant of divorce, therefore, we do not find it fitting to unnecessarily delve into the veracity of allegations of cruelty levelled by the respondent against the appellant," the bench said.

The court also considered the fact that the husband had already remarried, and he and his first wife had stayed together for only about two months after the marriage.

On the question of permanent alimony, the bench relied upon Rajnesh Vs Neha (2021) which has been reiterated time and again in various judgments and was also detailed in the recent case of Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel (2024).

Upon perusal of the affidavits submitted by both the parties, the bench opined it was evident that the husband had not been forthright in disclosure of his income and assets and was clearly attempting to escape his liability to support the appellant post-divorce.

"This court shall not acquiesce to such conduct of the respondent-husband," the bench said.

Going by the affidavit filed by the appellant, the court said, "It can be plainly inferred that the man has multiple sources of income including the rental income from tenanted premises".

"At the same time, it seems exaggerated to assess the woman's income from a salon at Nagpur to be an amount of Rs 2,00,000 per month and the respondent’s submission in this regard does not sound credible," the bench added.

Awarding a sum of Rs 10 lakh as permanent alimony to the woman, the bench said, this amount would fairly protect her interest without imposing any punitive or unreasonable financial burden on the man, thus aiming to safeguard the interest of both the parties.

"This amount shall cover all the pending and future claims of the appellant against the husband. The respondent is, therefore, directed to pay the said amount as permanent alimony to the appellant within a period of three months," the bench said.

Partly allowing the appeal, the bench upheld the Bombay High Court's order to the extent of finalising the grant of divorce decree to the parties.

Case Title: Sau Jiya Vs Kuldeep