Divorce Upheld, Alimony Awarded: Supreme Court Balances Cruelty, Breakdown and Financial Fairness in Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: SAU. JIYA vs. KULDEEP.

Citation: 2025 INSC 135 (Reportable)

Case Overview

This is a civil appeal filed by Sau. Jiya (appellant-wife) against Kuldeep (respondent-husband) challenging a divorce decree. The Supreme Court heard the appeal after it had gone through the Family Court and the High Court. The Family Court initially granted a divorce to the husband on grounds of mental cruelty by the wife, and the High Court upheld this decree. The Supreme Court upheld the divorce decree but addressed the issue of permanent alimony, awarding the wife a one-time settlement.

The case originated in the Family Court at Nagpur, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), where the husband sought a divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife had initially filed a petition seeking to declare the marriage null and void, claiming fraud by the husband’s family, under Section 6 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (FCA), read with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 12 of the HMA, which was dismissed.

Key Facts and Timeline

The marriage took place on 27.06.2012 after a four-year courtship. Soon after the marriage, the husband's father had health issues, leading to the wife feeling neglected. She left the matrimonial home after about two months of cohabitation, citing issues with the joint family. The wife initially filed a petition seeking the annulment of the marriage, which was dismissed. The husband filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court granted divorce on the grounds of the wife's mental cruelty towards the husband, while the desertion claim was not proven. The High Court dismissed the wife's appeal against the Family Court's ruling. The case then reached the Supreme Court after mediation attempts failed.

Grounds for Divorce

The primary grounds for divorce were cruelty and desertion as initially claimed by the husband in the Family Court. However, the Family Court did not find sufficient evidence of desertion but granted the divorce decree on grounds of mental cruelty. The mental cruelty stemmed from the wife's false accusations of fraud, dowry demands, harassment, and casting aspersions on the husband's character. The High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court, acknowledging that the husband had remarried and both parties agreed to the divorce, did not delve into the veracity of the cruelty allegations, focusing instead on the financial settlement.

Cruelty as Grounds for Divorce

The central issue was whether the wife’s conduct amounted to mental cruelty, justifying divorce. This included false allegations of fraud and dowry demands made by the wife which were not proven, and was considered an instance of cruelty. The court noted, "it was held that the appellant could not substantiate her claims against the husband with regard to marrying her with a view to extract money from her parents...and thus conclusively proves that she had levied false and baseless allegation of fraud against the husband and his family members". The wife’s insistence on living separately from the husband’s family was also considered cruel. The court held, "Further, it was held that the appellant-wife’s conduct in pestering the husband to leave his old family members and reside separately with the wife would tantamount to cruelty". Furthermore, the wife’s suggestion during cross-examination about the husband's alleged illicit relationship was considered mental cruelty. The court held " it was also held that the wife has 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 without any specific pleadings in this regard".

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

The Supreme Court noted that the parties had not lived together for a significant time, the husband had remarried, and there was no chance of reconciliation. The court concluded, "the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has evidently broken down irretrievably as such we are not inclined to interfere with the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and confirmed by the High Court". The decision highlights the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a valid factor for granting divorce.

Maintenance and Alimony

The key dispute revolved around maintenance. The court referenced the judgements in '''Rajnesh v. Neha''' and '''Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel''' setting out detailed factors for determining alimony. These factors include financial status, needs, educational qualifications, and standard of living. The husband claimed to be a daily wage labourer with a low income, while the wife asserted that the husband had multiple income sources, including a gym, a salaried position, and rental income. The court found the husband's claims unreliable and considered evidence provided by the wife, while rejecting the wife's claim of 2,00,000 monthly income for the salon. The court noted "In pursuance of the affidavit filed by the appellant, it can be plainly inferred that the respondent has multiple sources of income including the rental income from tenanted premises".

The Supreme Court found that the husband was not being honest about his income and assets and that he was attempting to avoid his responsibility to financially support his ex-wife. Despite the disagreement on exact income, the court chose to award a one-time settlement amount rather than monthly alimony. This was based on the need to achieve equity and not place an unreasonable financial burden on the respondent.

One-Time Settlement

The court ordered the respondent-husband to pay a one-time settlement of Rs. 10,00,000 to the appellant-wife as permanent alimony within three months. This amount was intended to cover all pending and future claims and ensure a fair balance of the interests of both parties. The court also took into account the husband's remarriage in 2019 and his financial responsibility towards his new family while making its decision regarding the one-time settlement.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the divorce decree granted by the Family Court and confirmed by the High Court. The court ordered the respondent-husband to pay a one-time settlement of Rs. 10,00,000 to the appellant-wife as permanent alimony within three months. No order was made regarding the costs of the proceedings.

Rationale

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the divorce was based on the fact that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and both parties had agreed to the divorce, with the husband having already remarried. The court did not delve into the cruelty allegations because the focus was on reaching a financial settlement. The decision to award a one-time settlement was based on the need to achieve equity and justice, ensuring the wife's financial security post-divorce without placing an undue financial strain on the husband, also considering that the husband had already remarried. The court stressed that the amount was not punitive but an attempt to reach a fair balance. The court also considered the guidelines laid down in previous cases such as '''Rajnesh v. Neha''' and '''Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel''' for determining maintenance and alimony. The court also considered the husband’s untruthful disclosure of income and assets. The court determined that despite the wife’s claims also being exaggerated, the husband’s claims of a very low income were not credible and he clearly had multiple sources of income.

Excerpt

"the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has evidently broken down irretrievably as such we are not inclined to interfere with the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and confirmed by the High Court."

"the respondent has not been forthright in disclosure of his income and assets and is clearly attempting to escape his liability to support the appellant post-divorce."

"awarding an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as a one-time settlement in favour of the appellant-wife shall serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice."

Points to Remember

  • False allegations, unreasonable demands, and character assassinations can be considered mental cruelty, justifying divorce.
  • The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a valid factor for divorce.
  • Courts take a holistic approach when determining maintenance, taking into account the status of parties and their financial capacity.
  • Parties must truthfully disclose their financial situation during maintenance proceedings.

Conclusion

This judgment provides a nuanced approach to a complex matrimonial dispute. While upholding the divorce based on the wife's cruelty and the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Supreme Court ensured the wife was adequately compensated by awarding a fair, one-time settlement. It also highlights the importance of truthful financial disclosure in legal proceedings and emphasizes the holistic and equitable approach needed while deciding matters related to divorce and maintenance in India.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more