2025 INSC 135 Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 1 of 19

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(SLP (C) NO.24893 OF 2018)

SAU. JIYA …APPELLANT

VERSUS

KULDEEP …RESPONDENT

O R D E R

VIKRAM NATH , J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeals arise out of the impugned

order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur in Family

Court Appeal No. 37 of 2017 whereby the High Court

dismissed the appellant’s appeal challenging the

decree of divorce granted by the Family Court.

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 2 of 19

3. The brief facts of the matter are that the

marriage between the appellant -wife and the

respondent-husband was solemnized on 27.06.2012

at Nagpur as per Hindu rights and customs after a

courtship of about four years and the appellant

started cohabiting with the respondent at the

matrimonial house. The respondent filed Petition No.

A-943 of 2014 before the Family Court, Nagpur under

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

1 seeking

grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and

desertion. It was alleged by the respondent in the

divorce petition that soon after the marriage, his

father suffered some heart problem and was required

to be hospitalized for about fifteen days during which

the husband could not devote enough time to the

appellant which became the cause of her anguish and

displeasure. Resultantly, the appellant left the

company of the respondent and went to her maternal

home. It was further claimed by the respondent that

he had made attempts to bring the appellant back to

the matrimonial home who exhibited reluctance to

return as she did not want to cohabit with him in a

1

HMA

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 3 of 19

joint family. Therefore, it was stated that the parties

stayed together for about only two months and there

is no issue out of the wedlock.

4. It was also brought forth by the respondent that

the appellant had earlier filed a Petition No. A-

1065/12 before the Family Court under Section 6 of

the Family Courts Act, 1984

2 read with Section 34 of

the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 12 of the

HMA 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 respondent

and his family members whose sole intention behind

the marriage was to extract money from the

appellant’s parents. However, the said petition was

dismissed by the Family Court vide its judgment

dated 01.08.2014. The appellant neither preferred

any appeal against the order dated 01.08.2014 nor

joined back the company of the respondent-husband.

5. The allegations of cruelty levelled by the

respondent against the appellant mainly revolved

around her threatening the respondent and his

2

FCA

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 4 of 19

family members of filing false and malicious criminal

proceedings against them. The said allegations were

vehemently denied by the appellant in her written

statement before the Family Court wherein she stated

that she treated her husband and his family

members in a proper manner and always wished to

cohabit with the husband but was rather constrained

to reside separately as she was being subjected to

physical and verbal abuse by the husband. The

respondent also submitted that the appellant-wife

has, during the cross-examination, suggested that he

had an illicit relationship with the wife of his friend

Gaurav Chawla and such a suggestion in itself would

lead to mental cruelty upon the husband.

6. As per the appellant, the respondent had

obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce dated

09.01.2015 from the Family Court against which she

appealed before the High Court and the High Court

had remanded the matter back to the Family Court

for a fresh trial after hearing both the parties.

7. Thereafter, the Family Court, in view of the

mandate of Section 9 of FCA, made attempts to bring

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 5 of 19

about an amicable settlement between the parties

which failed. Subsequently, the Family Court after

framing the issues, hearing the parties, examining

the witnesses and perusing the record, allowed the

respondent’s petition on the ground of cruelty and

dissolved the marriage between the parties vide

judgment dated 31.07.2017. The Family Court 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

respondent as the appellant had levelled false

allegations of fraud, dowry demand, harassment and

assassinated the husband’s character.

8. Aggrieved by the decree of divorce granted by

the Family Court in the favour of the respondent-

husband, the appellant preferred an appeal before

the High Court. The High Court, vide the impugned

order, dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld

the order of the Family Court, thereby affirming the

divorce decree. 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

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 6 of 19

from her parents, which had also led to dismissal of

her petition seeking annulment of marriage, and thus

conclusively proves that she had levied false and

baseless allegation of fraud against the husband and

his family members. 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. Lastly, 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.

9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated

25.04.2018, the appellant is before us.

10. During the course of the proceedings in the

matter before us, on 15.03.2024, Learned counsel for

the respondent-husband stated that his client has re-

married in the year 2019 and suggested that in view

of the changed circumstances, the parties may be

referred to mediation for arriving at a one-time lump

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 7 of 19

sum amount which may be paid by the respondent -

husband to the appellant-wife. Learned counsel for

the appellant-wife was not averse to the said

suggestion. Accordingly, without prejudice to the

rights and contentions of the parties, they were

referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.

However, on 02.08.2024, we were apprised by the

counsel for the parties that they have not been able

to reach a settlement and hence, the matter was

decided to be taken up on merits.

11. In the meanwhile, the respondent-husband was

also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the

appellant-wife in pursuance of I.A. No.208023 of

2024 filed by the wife seeking the amount on account

of expenses borne for physical attendance during the

mediation proceedings.

12. During the contentions before us on 01.10.2024

with regard to the maintenance amount, Counsel for

the appellant stated that the monthly income of the

respondent is more than Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one

lakh thirty thousand only) per month, as he is getting

about Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only)

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 8 of 19

from Gym where he works and Rs.50,000/ - (Rupees

fifty thousand only) from SPANCO. It was also

submitted that the respondent has two houses in his

name and also has three wives. Whereas the Counsel

for the respondent submitted that the respondent is

a daily-wage labourer as he works on contract basis

as Electrician, and therefore, he gets a very nominal

amount only for the days on which he gets work.

13. In pursuance of the said submissions, we had

directed the parties to place all such facts on record

by way of an affidavit because we found that only a

meagre amount of Rs. 3,000/ - (Rupees three

thousand only) per month was awarded as

maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

3 , which had also

been challenged by the respondent by way of revision,

which shows that the respondent does not want to

support his wife at all, even though he got a divorce

decree from the Family Court and also confirmed by

the High Court. Accordingly, the respondent was also

directed to file his affidavit of assets/income within

four weeks.

3

Cr.P.C.

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 9 of 19

14. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties as also both the parties in-person and

perused the material on record.

15. Firstly, with regard to the divorce decree, as

noted above, the respondent has submitted that he

has already re-married in the year 2019 and the

mediation proceedings as well as the submissions

before us were only aimed at reaching a consensus

on one-time settlement amount. Even in the signing

off paragraph of the impugned order, the High Court

had also observed that even on the said day, the wife

was ready for a divorce but she was claiming a huge

amount. Hence, 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. Considering the fact that the

husband has already remarried, the present parties

stayed together for only about two months after the

marriage, have no intention to continue their marital

relationship, the marriage between the appellant-wife

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 10 of 19

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.

16. Now moving ahead to the contention with regard

to the maintenance amount in favour of the

appellant-wife, both the parties have agreed that a

one-time settlement amount maybe awarded to the

appellant but failed to reach a consensus on the said

amount due to a non-agreement on the financial

position of the respondent. On the question of

permanent alimony and relevant factors for

consideration, this Court has laid out the factors in

detail in Rajnesh v. Neha

4 which have been reiterated

time and again in various judgments and were also

detailed in the recent case of Kiran Jyot Maini v.

Anish Pramod Patel

5 in the following terms:

“25. A two-judge bench of this Court in Rajnesh

v. Neha (supra), elaborated upon the broad

criteria and the factors to be considered for

determining the quantum of maintenance. This

4

(2021) 2 SCC 324

5

2024 SCC OnLine SC 17824

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 11 of 19

judgment lays down a comprehensive

framework for determining the quantum of

maintenance in matrimonial disputes,

particularly focusing on permanent alimony.

The primary objective is to prevent the

dependent spouse from being reduced to

destitution or vagrancy due to the failure of the

marriage, rather than punishing the other

spouse. The court emphasizes that there is no

fixed formula for calculating maintenance

amount; instead, it should be based on a

balanced consideration of various factors.

These factors include but are not limited to:

i. Status of the parties, social and financial.

ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and

dependent children.

iii. Qualifications and employment status of the

parties.

iv. Independent income or assets owned by the

parties.

v. Maintain standard of living as in the

matrimonial home.

vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family

responsibilities.

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 12 of 19

vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-

working wife.

viii. Financial capacity of husband, his income,

maintenance obligations, and liabilities.

The status of the parties is a significant factor,

encompassing their social standing, lifestyle,

and financial background. The reasonable

needs of the wife and dependent children must

be assessed, including costs for food, clothing,

shelter, education, and medical expenses. The

applicant's educational and professional

qualifications, as well as their employment

history, play a crucial role in evaluating their

potential for self-sufficiency. If the applicant

has any independent source of income or owns

property, this will also be taken into account to

determine if it is sufficient to maintain the same

standard of living experienced during the

marriage. Additionally, the court considers

whether the applicant had to sacrifice

employment opportunities for famil y

responsibilities, such as child-rearing or caring

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 13 of 19

for elderly family members, which may have

impacted their career prospects.

26. Furthermore, the financial capacity of the

husband is a critical factor in determining

permanent alimony. The Court shall examine

the husband's actual income, reasonable

expenses for his own maintenance, and any

dependents he is legally obligated to support.

His liabilities and financial commitments are

also to be considered to ensure a balanced and

fair maintenance award. The court must

consider the husband's standard of living and

the impact of inflation and high living costs.

Even if the husband claims to have no source

of income, his ability to earn, given his

education and qualifications, is to be taken into

account. The courts shall ensure that the relief

granted is fair, reasonable, and consistent with

the standard of living to which the aggrieved

party was accustomed. The court's approach

should be to balance all relevant factors to

avoid maintenance amounts that are either

excessively high or unduly low, ensuring that

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 14 of 19

the dependent spouse can live with reasonable

comfort post-separation.

27. Additionally, the judgment addresses

specific scenarios such as the right of residence

under the PWDV Act, the impact of the wife's

income on maintenance, and the needs of

minor children. Even if the wife is earning, it

does not bar her from receiving maintenance;

the Court should assess whether her income

suffices to maintain a lifestyle similar to that in

the matrimonial home. The judgment also

considers the expenses associated with the

care of minor children, including educational

expenses and reason able amounts for

extracurricular activities. Serious disability or

illness of a spouse, child, or dependent family

member, requiring constant care and recurrent

expenditure, is also a significant consideration.

Key precedents cited to reach this broad

framework include Manish Jain v. Akanksha

Jain [(2017) 15 SCC 801], Shailja v.

Khobbanna [(2018) 12 SCC 199], and Sunita

Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [(2014) 16 SCC

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 15 of 19

715], which reinforce these principles and

provide a sound, reasonable and fair basis for

determining maintenance in subsequent

cases.”

17. Coming to the instant case, an affidavit dated

04.11.2024 was filed by the respondent -husband

detailing his assets, income and expenditure. In the

said affidavit, the respondent has stated that he is

working as an Outsource Operator at one G.A. Digital

Web World Pvt. Ltd. earning a monthly income of Rs.

16,612/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred

Twelve only). He stated his personal monthly

expenses to be around Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Four Thousand only). He also stated that he has four

dependent family members, i.e. his father, mother,

brother and the second-wife and incurs an expense

of around Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only)

per month on account of the dependent persons.

Other than this, the respondent stated that he does

not own any immovable property and does not have

any other source of income, and had to obtain a

personal loan from the Bank to clear the amount of

arrears of maintenance as also to bear medical

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 16 of 19

expenses of the dependents. The husband, in his

affidavit, also stated that the appellant is running a

unisex salon in Nagpur and earning an amount of Rs.

2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) per month from

the said business but has failed to furnish any

document to substantiate such claim.

18. On the other hand, the appellant-wife also filed

an affidavit before us in terms of the order dated

01.10.2024 and stated that the respondent is

running a gym in Nagpur since January, 2014 and is

earning more than Rs. 80,000 (Rupees Eighty

Thousand only) per month from the said gym. It was

also stated that the respondent is working with

SPANCO on salaried basis as an electrical engineer.

Further, it was submitted that the respondent is also

earning around Rs. 30,000 /- (Rupees Thirty

thousand only) per m onth from the tenanted

premises and his total monthly income is more than

Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One lakh Thirty Thousand

only). The appellant has annexed the photographs of

the said gym, advertisements made by the

respondent pertaining to the gym displaying the

membership fees and photographs of the tenanted

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 17 of 19

premises in order to buttress her claim in the

affidavit. Lastly, with regard to the number of

dependents on the respondent, it was submitted by

the appellant that the father of the respondent has

retired from Maharashtra State Electricity Board and

receives pension. Further, the respondent’s brother

has an independent income and is living separately.

19. A bare perusal of the affidavits submitted by

both the parties makes it evident that the husband

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. This

Court shall not acquiesce to such conduct of the

respondent-husband. 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.

At the same time, it seems exaggerated to assess the

appellant’s income from a salon at Nagpur to be an

amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)

per month and the respondent’s submission in this

regard does not sound credible. Further, it is an

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 18 of 19

admitted fact that there is no issue out of the

wedlock.

20. Therefore, considering the total facts and

circumstances of the case, the financial status of the

parties, their standards of living, the fact that the

respondent has already remarried and also bears the

financial responsibility of his new family, we find that

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. As such, this amount shall

fairly protect the interest of the appellant without

imposing any punitive or unreasonable financial

burden on the respondent, 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.

21. Accordingly, the instant appeal is partially

allowed in terms of the above directions, the

Civil Appeal No.@SLP(C)No.24893 of 2018 Page 19 of 19

impugned order dated 25.04.2018 is upheld to the

extent of finalising the grant of divorce decree to the

parties.

22. No order as to costs.

23. Pending Applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

…………………………………….

[VIKRAM NATH]

…………………………………….

[PRASANNA B. VARALE ]

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 31, 2025