Summary
On the husband's application in the wife's transfer petition, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142(1) on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, despite the wife's opposition. The parties had barely cohabited, faced multiple criminal and civil proceedings including the husband's arrest on the wife's FIR, mediation had failed and there was no child. Rejecting the wife's claim to alimony matching the husband's wealth or his first wife's settlement, it fixed permanent alimony at Rs. 12 crores and quashed the FIRs she had lodged.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its power under Article 142(1) to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown on the husband's application, though the wife opposed it.
- What factors govern the grant of divorce on irretrievable breakdown under Article 142(1) following Shilpa Sailesh.
- On what principles permanent alimony should be fixed, and whether a spouse can claim alimony to equalise wealth with the other spouse or to match a former spouse's settlement.
Provisions considered
- Article 142(1), Constitution of IndiaFollowing the Constitution Bench in Shilpa Sailesh, the Court held that it may dissolve a marriage on irretrievable breakdown, even over the other spouse's opposition, as a discretionary power to do complete justice and not as of right; it need not adjudicate fault as under the HMA but takes a holistic view. Exercised here, with consequential quashing of the wife's FIRs. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7, 8.11, 8.12, 8.14, 8.15, 13, 15)
- Section 13B(1) and (2), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Contrasted with fault-based divorce under Section 13: where both spouses establish one year's separation, inability to live together and mutual agreement, that itself reflects irretrievable breakdown. The parties' earlier joint petition had been dismissed for want of one year's separation. (¶¶ 8.13, 8.17, 9.7)
- Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955The husband's pending cruelty petition was the subject of the transfer petition; the Court noted that fault-based divorce depends on proof of the matrimonial offence, unlike relief under Article 142(1). (¶¶ 3.3, 8.12, 8.13)
- Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court observed that Sections 498A, 376, 377 and 506 are increasingly invoked together in matrimonial disputes as a pressure tactic, and that these beneficial provisions are meant to protect women, not to threaten or extort from husbands. (¶¶ 10, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3)
Held
- Divorce on irretrievable breakdown under Article 142(1) is a discretion exercised with care, not a right; the Court must be satisfied that the marriage has completely failed with no possibility of cohabitation, considering illustrative factors such as cohabitation period, nature of allegations, legal proceedings, settlement attempts, separation period, socio-economic status, age and children. Unlike a Family Court bound by fault-based grounds, the Court need not determine who was at fault. (¶¶ 8.11, 8.12, 8.14, 8.15)
- On facts, the marriage never took off: there was no continuous cohabitation, the husband filed three divorce petitions within a short span after the first anniversary, the wife's FIR led to a look-out circular and his arrest, numerous proceedings were pending between the parties and their families, mediation including before a retired Judge failed, and the husband refused further talks. The wife's professed wish to continue the marriage was inconsistent with her criminal complaints and her claim to very large alimony. (¶¶ 9.2, 9.4, 9.8, 9.10, 9.11, 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.16)
- Forcing the parties back to the Family Court or to remain in a marriage that has ceased to exist would cause unwarranted hardship; with no child of the marriage, it was a fit case to dissolve the marriage under Article 142(1). (¶¶ 9.16, 11.1, 12, 13)
- Criminal provisions protecting women are sometimes misused as a platform for negotiation or to extract money; such complaints, hasty arrests and refusal of bail often destroy any chance of reconciliation. (¶¶ 10, 10.3)
- Permanent alimony has no fixed formula and depends on factors including status of the parties, the wife's reasonable needs, qualifications, independent income and assets, the matrimonial standard of living, employment sacrifices, litigation costs, the husband's capacity and obligations, and the duration of the marriage. (¶¶ 14.2.2, 14.2.3, 14.3, 14.8)
- Maintenance is meant to prevent destitution and secure dignity, not to equalise wealth; once separated, a husband cannot be expected to maintain the wife according to his changing status for life. The wife's entitlement must rest on factors applicable to her, not on the husband's income alone or on what he paid a former wife after a long marriage with children. (¶¶ 14.5, 14.6, 14.7)
- Accepting the Family Court's assessment of Rs. 10 crores, given the wife's own income, rental property and deposits, and adding Rs. 2 crores to enable her to buy a flat since she must vacate her father-in-law's flats, the Court fixed Rs. 12 crores as full and final permanent alimony, with no claim by the husband's family for return of money, jewellery or gifts. (¶¶ 14.9, 14.10)
Result
Husband's application under Article 142(1) allowed and marriage dissolved; criminal proceedings arising from the two FIRs lodged by the wife at Police Station Yerwada, Pune quashed; husband to pay Rs. 12 crores permanent alimony within one month, with an undertaking within two weeks, plus Rs. 3 lakhs litigation costs; wife to vacate the father-in-law's flats at Pune and Bhopal within two months of receiving the alimony, with an undertaking; transfer petition disposed of.