Summary
The Supreme Court declined to disturb a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, without examining the cruelty findings, because the husband had remarried, the parties had lived together for only about two months and the marriage had irretrievably broken down; applying the Rajnesh v. Neha factors and finding the husband had not candidly disclosed his income, it awarded the wife Rs. 10,00,000 as one-time permanent alimony.
Issues
- Whether the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court on the ground of mental cruelty and affirmed by the High Court called for interference.
- What one-time permanent alimony should be awarded to the wife, given the conflicting affidavits on the husband's income and assets.
Provisions considered
- Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955The husband's divorce petition on cruelty and desertion was allowed on cruelty; the Supreme Court left the decree undisturbed on the basis of irretrievable breakdown without going into the truth of the cruelty allegations. (¶¶ 3, 7, 15)
Held
- Where the husband had remarried, the parties had cohabited only about two months, both had accepted divorce and the only live dispute was the quantum of a one-time settlement, the Court did not examine the veracity of the cruelty allegations and declined to interfere with the divorce decree, the marriage having irretrievably broken down. (¶¶ 10, 15)
- Permanent alimony is to be fixed by balancing the factors set out in Rajnesh v. Neha and reiterated in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, including the parties' status, the wife's reasonable needs, the parties' qualifications, income and assets, the standard of living in the matrimonial home and the husband's financial capacity and liabilities, so as to prevent destitution rather than punish the other spouse. (¶ 16)
- On the affidavits, the husband had not been forthright about his income and assets and was trying to escape his obligation to support the wife; it could be inferred that he had several sources of income including rent, while his claim that the wife earned Rs. 2,00,000 a month from a salon was unsubstantiated and not credible. (¶¶ 13, 17, 18, 19)
- Taking into account the parties' financial status and standard of living, the absence of children and the husband's responsibility for his new family, Rs. 10,00,000 was fixed as a one-time settlement covering all pending and future claims of the wife, fair to her without being punitive to him. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; divorce decree upheld; respondent-husband directed to pay Rs. 10,00,000 as permanent alimony within three months in full settlement of all pending and future claims; no order as to costs.