The Supreme Court has criticized the “grossly injudicious” handling of a woman’s long-standing legal battle over multiple divorce decrees granted in Karnataka. Her struggle, which began in 1991, highlights the systemic challenges women face in matrimonial disputes.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court expressed its deep concern over the “grossly injudicious” treatment of a woman who has been fighting a protracted legal battle against repeated divorce decrees granted in favor of her estranged husband by a family court in Karnataka. This case, spanning nearly three decades, underscores the hurdles faced by women seeking justice in matrimonial disputes.
The woman’s ordeal began in 1991 when she married her husband. A year later, she gave birth to a son. However, her happiness was short-lived as her husband soon deserted her. In a move that would set the stage for a long and painful legal struggle, her husband filed for divorce in a family court in Karnataka. Shockingly, the court not only granted the divorce decree once but did so three times, despite clear evidence that the husband had failed to provide any financial support to his wife or their minor child.
The woman’s persistence led her to approach the Karnataka High Court multiple times, challenging the family court’s decisions. Each time, the high court directed the family court to reconsider the husband’s petition. However, on every occasion, the husband managed to secure a divorce decree. In a particularly distressing turn of events, the high court eventually upheld the family court’s decision to grant the husband a divorce, albeit with the condition that he pay a permanent alimony of Rs 20 lakh. This decision came despite the family court’s earlier ruling, which had awarded Rs 25 lakh to the woman.
The woman’s case caught the attention of a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan. The bench was deeply disturbed by the manner in which the family court repeatedly granted divorce decrees without considering the husband’s failure to support his wife and child.
ALSO READ: Whether Alimony Can be Granted If Marriage is Declared Void? Supreme Court To Decide
The Supreme Court observed-
“Upon reviewing the record, it appears that the judicial system has been profoundly unjust to the appellant and her minor child, who has now reached adulthood.”
The bench further noted-
“We state this because the respondent inflicted severe cruelty on the appellant for years and failed to provide any support for his son’s future or contribute even to his school education.”
Adding a unique dimension to the case, the respondent’s own mother, who had been living with the woman throughout the years, sided with her daughter-in-law against her own son.
The Supreme Court took note of this, stating-
“The respondent’s own mother has been living with the appellant all these years and has now taken a stand against him.”
The Court condemned the family court’s actions, remarking that –
“The family court’s repeated issuance of divorce decrees against the appellant reflects not only a lack of sensitivity but also potential bias. The courts should not have favored the respondent’s misconduct in their decisions.”
Despite its strong condemnation of the lower courts’ actions, the Supreme Court recognized that the couple had been living separately since 1992. In light of this, the Court sustained the decree of divorce granted by the family court but imposed several conditions to protect the rights and interests of the woman and her son.
The Supreme Court took decisive steps to ensure that justice was served. It not only enhanced the alimony awarded to the woman by Rs 10 lakh, bringing the total to Rs 30 lakh, but also issued orders to protect the property rights of the woman, her son, and her mother-in-law. The bench ruled that-
“the house currently occupied by the woman, her son, and her mother-in-law will be retained by them”
and prohibited the husband from interfering with their peaceful possession of the property.
In a significant ruling regarding the son’s future, the Court stated-
“If the respondent owns any other immovable property, the son of the parties will have preferential ownership rights over it, regardless of any title transfer by the respondent.”
The bench emphasized that this direction was necessary because the son-
“has an indefeasible and enforceable right to request maintenance and sufficient funds for his school and higher education.”
To ensure compliance with its orders, the Supreme Court warned the husband that any failure to adhere to the conditions set by the Court would result in the divorce decree being rendered “null and void.” The Court mandated that the husband pay the enhanced alimony within three months, with an interest rate of seven percent per annum dating back to August 3, 2006, the date when the first divorce decree was passed.
The bench also made it clear that-
“if the respondent does not pay the awarded amount to the appellant within the specified time, the family court is instructed to take legal action against him.”