Supreme Court Finalises Divorce, Orders Rs 50 Lakh Alimony to Judicial Officer and Advocate, noting that the husband’s position carries a heightened obligation. The Bench said this obligation is to ensure the wife’s fair dignified long-term security and protection.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India confirmed a divorce decree issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, noting that the marriage between the involved parties had broken down beyond repair.
In affirming the dissolution of marriage, the Apex Court increased the permanent alimony for the appellant-wife from Rs 30 Lakhs to Rs 50 Lakhs.
The Court emphasized the respondent-husband’s “heightened obligation” as a serving Judicial Officer to ensure adequate financial security for his estranged wife and daughter.
The Bench, consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, remarked,
“Continuing the marital tie would serve neither the spouses nor their child; rather, it would only prolong hostility and impede their ability to move forward with dignity.”
The appeal (Civil Appeal No. 14856 of 2024) stemmed from a judgment dated August 28, 2024, issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The couple married on December 6, 2008, when the respondent-husband was training as a Judicial Officer and the appellant-wife was an Additional Advocate General.
They welcomed a daughter on November 13, 2009, but have been living separately since 2012, marking a separation of more than thirteen years.
The legal dispute began when the respondent-husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty as the reason.
The Family Court in SAS Nagar, Mohali, dismissed the application on April 11, 2023, finding no evidence of cruelty and determining that the husband had subjected the wife to it.
However, the High Court later overturned this ruling, granting a divorce decree and awarding Rs 30 Lakhs as permanent alimony, concluding that it was not in their best interests to live together.
After reviewing the case and speaking with the parties involved, the Supreme Court acknowledged that their relationship had become “deeply embittered and acrimonious over the years.”
The Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the Bench, stated,
“In these circumstances, we see no purpose in perpetuating a legal bond that has long ceased to have any substance… We therefore affirm the view that the marriage has broken down beyond repair, and that dissolution is in the interest of justice and in the welfare of all concerned.”
The Court highlighted the importance of the couple’s seventeen-year-old daughter’s wellbeing, arguing that maintaining the legal bond would only “prolong hostility and impede their ability to move forward with dignity.”
While upholding the divorce decree, the Court deemed the alimony awarded by the High Court insufficient based on the respondent-husband’s position.
It noted that the respondent serves as a Family Court Judge and holds a responsible public role.
The Bench stated,
“The respondent-husband is a serving judicial officer holding a responsible public position and is, therefore, under a heightened obligation to ensure fair, adequate, and dignified financial security for his wife and daughter.”
As a result, the Supreme Court raised the permanent alimony to Rs 50,00,000/- (Fifty Lakhs only), mandating payment within three months.
This amount was deemed a “full and final settlement of all monetary and other claims” related to the marriage, concluding all pending civil and criminal matters between the parties.
The Supreme Court also affirmed the specific financial arrangements established by the High Court for the couple’s daughter:
- LIC Policy Maturity: The total maturity sum from the LIC policy held by the respondent-husband, approximately Rs 41,00,000/-, shall be deposited into the daughter’s account.
- Monthly Maintenance: The respondent-husband is required to deposit Rs 30,000/- monthly until the daughter can support herself.
- Marriage Expenses: The respondent-husband will cover all costs related to her marriage.
- Inheritance: The respondent-husband cannot disinherit the daughter from his estate.
Case Title: SONIA VIRK VS ROHIT VATS
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
