Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony, Dissolves Marriage on Grounds of Irretrievable Breakdown

INTRODUCTION 

In a significant ruling delivered on December 19, 2024, the Supreme Court of India dissolved a short-lived marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court directed the husband to pay 12 Cr as permanent alimony to the wife, while strongly cautioning against the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

Background and Facts of the Case

The parties were married on July 31, 2021, in Pune according to Hindu rites. The husband, a US-based IT consultant, was previously married and had children from his first marriage, for which he had reportedly paid a substantial settlement. Disputes erupted almost immediately after the wedding, primarily stemming from issues related to the husband's obligations towards his children from the prior marriage, his ex-wife, and his ailing parents.

The marriage barely lasted a few months, with no continuous cohabitation. Allegations of cruelty flew from both sides, escalating into multiple legal battles:

The husband filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, Bhopal, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing mental cruelty.

The wife filed several criminal complaints against the husband and his family, including serious charges under Sections 498A (cruelty), 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 506 (criminal intimidation), and provisions of the Information Technology Act. These led to the husband's brief arrest before he secured bail.

The wife sought transfer of the divorce proceedings from Bhopal to Pune for convenience and safety, and demanded an astronomical ₹500 crore as permanent alimony, claiming it should match the settlement given to the husband's first wife and reflect his alleged net worth of ₹5,000 crore.

The husband, in response, urged the Supreme Court to dissolve the marriage under Article 142, arguing that the relationship was beyond repair.

Observations by the Supreme Court

The Court noted that forcing parties to remain in an "emotionally dead" marriage causes undue hardship and serves no purpose. Relying on precedents, it exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even though this is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act.

On Misuse of Section 498A and Criminal Provisions

The bench expressed grave concern over the growing trend of misusing criminal laws in matrimonial disputes:

The provisions in criminal law are for the protection and empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women more for purposes that they are never meant for."

The Court highlighted how Sections 498A, 376, 377, and 506 IPC are increasingly invoked as a "combined package" in complaints, a practice it has condemned in multiple prior rulings. Such actions, it observed, often turn minor marital discord into prolonged battles of ego, reputation, and vendetta.

In this case, all pending criminal proceedings against the husband and his family were quashed as part of the final settlement.

Determination of Permanent Alimony

The wife's demand for ₹500 crore was deemed excessive and unfounded. The Court criticized the emerging tendency to treat alimony as a means to "equalize wealth" between spouses:

We have serious reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalization of wealth with the other party."

It emphasized that alimony should ensure a reasonable standard of living for the dependent spouse, considering factors such as:

- The income and assets of both parties

- The wife's own earning potential and needs

- Duration of the marriage

- Standard of living during the marriage

- Residential requirements

There is no "straight-jacket formula," and parity with settlements from a husband's previous marriage is irrelevant.

The Family Court in Pune had suggested ₹10 crore as appropriate alimony. The Supreme Court enhanced it to ₹12 crore (plus ₹3 lakh for litigation expenses) to account for the wife's future residential needs. The husband was directed to pay this within one month. In return, the wife was ordered to vacate properties belonging to the husband's father in Pune and Bhopal within two months of receipt.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the Supreme Court's proactive approach in resolving acrimonious matrimonial cases where lower courts are constrained by statutory limits. By dissolving the marriage and settling all claims in one go—including quashing criminal cases—it allows both parties to move forward.

It also sends a strong message against weaponizing laws like Section 498A for leverage in divorce proceedings, while clarifying that exorbitant alimony demands aimed at wealth equalization will not be entertained.

The judgment balances empathy for genuine victims of cruelty with safeguards against misuse, promoting fairness in an era of rising matrimonial litigation.

As matrimonial disputes continue to strain families and courts, such interventions under Article 142 provide a pragmatic path to closure, preventing prolonged suffering for all involved.