Summary
In appeals by a husband against enhanced interim maintenance, the Supreme Court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down after some twenty years of separation and dissolved it under Article 142, with both parties agreeing. As interim maintenance was now infructuous, it fixed permanent alimony as a one-time settlement of Rs. 5 crores for the wife and Rs. 1 crore for the adult son, applying the Rajnesh v. Neha and Kiran Jyot Maini factors.
Issues
- Whether the marriage, with the parties living apart since 2004 and both agreeing to its dissolution, should be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Constitution.
- What factors govern the amount of permanent alimony, and what sum was just for the wife.
- Whether provision should be made for the maintenance of a son who had become a major and completed his engineering degree.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaFollowing Shilpa Sailesh and Kiran Jyot Maini, the Court examined the period of cohabitation and separation, failed reconciliation and the nature of the allegations, found the marriage completely dead, and dissolved it in exercise of its discretionary power. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 43)
- Sections 24 and 26, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955The appeals arose from orders enhancing maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 and maintenance for the son under Section 26 after the husband withdrew his divorce petition. The Court did not rule on those questions, holding that maintenance pendente lite became infructuous on dissolution, and instead fixed permanent alimony. (¶¶ 2, 5, 10, 11, 29)
Held
- A marriage may be dissolved under Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown where, on a careful factual examination of cohabitation, length of separation, failed reconciliation and the gravity of mutual allegations, the Court is satisfied that it cannot survive and no useful purpose would be served by continuing it; a cohabitation of about five years followed by over two decades of separation, prolonged litigation and both parties' consent met that standard. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- There is no fixed formula for permanent alimony; the court weighs factors such as the parties' social and financial status, the reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, qualifications and employment, independent income or assets, the standard of living in the matrimonial home, employment sacrifices for the family, litigation costs and the husband's income, obligations and liabilities. These are guidelines, not a rigid rubric. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Permanent alimony aims to ensure that the dependent spouse is not left without support and can live decently after dissolution; it is not meant to penalise the other spouse. (¶¶ 32, 39)
- A father with the means is obliged to provide for his child even after the child attains majority, since in today's competitive conditions gainful employment may come only after education beyond a first degree; completing an engineering degree does not guarantee employment. (¶ 41)
Result
Appeals disposed of; marriage dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution; husband to pay a one-time permanent alimony of Rs. 5 crores to the wife, in settlement of all pending claims, and Rs. 1 crore for the son's maintenance and care, within four months; decree to be drawn up accordingly.