Case at a Glance
A couple married in 2009 had lived apart since 2010. A Family Court granted the husband divorce for cruelty, but the Madras High Court reversed it. After mediation failed in the Supreme Court, the husband sought dissolution under Article 142. The Court found the marriage irretrievably broken and dissolved it, on condition that he pay ₹1.25 crore as permanent alimony to the wife and son in five quarterly instalments.
Background
The parties married on 15 February 2009 and moved to the USA, where the husband worked. A son was born on 7 April 2010, and the parties have lived separately since 2010. On 26 September 2012 the husband filed for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and adultery. On 17 October 2016 the Family Court granted divorce for cruelty but found adultery not proved.
The wife appealed to the Madras High Court in January 2017. Notice of the appeal was never served on the husband, and he remarried on 5 March 2017. On 24 August 2018 the High Court allowed the wife's appeal and set aside the divorce. It held that the main cruelty the Family Court had accepted, rude remarks by the wife's father, could not be attributed to the wife. The husband appealed. The Supreme Court tried mediation, which failed, and the husband then applied for dissolution under Article 142.
The Question Before the Court
Should the marriage be dissolved under Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, and on what financial terms?
A Dead Marriage and an Unpaid Obligation
The Court found no possibility of reconciliation. The parties had lived apart for about 15 years and the husband had remarried, so the marriage had irretrievably broken down. It treated this as a fit case to dissolve the marriage under Article 142, without deciding whether the High Court was right on cruelty.
On money, the Court noted that the husband had given no financial support during the long separation. It directed a one-time lump sum of ₹1.25 crore as permanent alimony for the wife and son, in full satisfaction of the wife's claims. It also made the dissolution conditional on payment: the decree is to be drawn up only after proof of payment is filed with the Registry. The judgment cites no precedents.
What the Court Held
- The marriage had irretrievably broken down and was dissolved under Article 142.
- The husband must pay ₹1.25 crore as permanent alimony to the wife and son, satisfying all the wife's other claims.
- Payment is in five equal quarterly instalments of ₹25 lakh, due by 15.09.2025, 15.12.2025, 15.03.2026, 15.06.2026 and 15.09.2026.
- On default of any instalment, the order stands recalled. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's order set aside.
Why It Matters
- It links the grant of an Article 142 divorce to fair financial terms.
- It treats a spouse's failure to provide support during separation as relevant to alimony.
- It protects the receiving spouse by making the divorce depend on payment.
For Litigants / For Counsel
For litigants
- Seeking divorce under Article 142 can bring a substantial alimony condition, especially if no support was paid during separation.
- Missing an instalment can undo the divorce order.
For counsel
- Prepare a realistic payment plan before asking for Article 142 relief.
- Advise clients about remarrying while an appeal is pending. Here the husband remarried before the High Court decided the wife's appeal.
Key Takeaways
- About 15 years apart and remarriage showed irretrievable breakdown.
- The divorce was conditional on paying ₹1.25 crore.
- No support during separation weighed in fixing alimony.
- Default recalls the order.
FAQs
Did the Court decide whether there was cruelty?
No. It did not rule on the High Court's cruelty finding. It dissolved the marriage under Article 142.
Who receives the alimony?
The wife and the son. The payment satisfies all the wife's other claims.
When does the divorce take effect?
The decree is to be drawn up after proof of payment is filed with the Registry. If an instalment is missed, the order stands recalled.
Conclusion
The Court ended a marriage that had existed only on paper for 15 years. It ensured that the spouse who had received no support during that time would be compensated before the divorce became final.
Practical takeaway: under Article 142, the terms of payment can matter as much as the decision to dissolve.