New Delhi:After a courtship of four years, a couple decided to marry in June 2012. Ironically, they could stay happily married for only two months: the husband's father was hospitalised for 15 days and he failed to devote enough time to his wife, which became the cause of her anguish and displeasure. The wife left her husband and sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The marriage broke down irretrievably and the couple were locked in a legal battle on the amount of permanent alimony.
On Friday, a two-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, after noting that any chance of reconciliation has ceased to exist, directed the man to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as a permanent alimony in favour of his estranged wife.
The bench said 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.
The husband contended before the bench that he had made attempts to bring his estranged wife back to the matrimonial home but she exhibited reluctance to return as she did not want to cohabit with him in a joint family.
"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 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," said the bench.
The bench noted that both parties have agreed that a one-time settlement amount may be 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 husband.
The bench said a bare perusal of the affidavits submitted by both 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, and it will not acquiesce to such conduct of the husband. The wife contended that her estranged husband has multiple sources of income including the rental income from tenanted premises. The bench declined to accept the husband's contention that the appellant's income from a salon at Nagpur is Rs 2 lakh per month.
"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 Lakh, as a one-time settlement in favour of the appellant-wife shall serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice," said the apex court.
The bench said 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 parties, and it will cover all the pending and future claims of the appellant against the husband. The bench directed the man to pay the permanent alimony to his estranged wife within three months.
A family court after framing the issues, hearing the parties, examining the witnesses and perusing the record, allowed the husband’s petition on the ground of cruelty and dissolved the marriage between the parties in July 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 husband as the appellant had levelled false allegations of fraud, dowry demand, harassment and assassinated the husband’s character.
The wife, aggrieved by the decree of divorce granted by the family court in favour of the husband, preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur. The high court in April 2018, dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the order of the family court, thereby affirming the divorce decree. She moved the apex court against the high court order.
