A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2915-2918 of 2024) dissolved the marriage between the parties under Article 142 of the Constitution of India due to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The parties had cohabited for less than a year and had been living separately for nine years. Despite numerous reconciliation attempts, the marital relationship had become unworkable. The Court granted a divorce and directed the respondent-husband to pay ₹2 Crores as permanent alimony to the appellant-wife. Factors such as the parties’ social and financial status, employability, and current obligations were critical in determining the alimony. The decision emphasizes the Court’s discretionary powers under Article 142 to ensure justice in matrimonial disputes even when statutory grounds for divorce are absent.

Keywords: Article 142, irretrievable breakdown of marriage, permanent alimony, matrimonial disputes, equitable relief.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2915-2918 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date: 15 July 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

vi) Author: Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 942; 2024 INSC 530

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 142, Constitution of India
• Section 498A, 323, 504, IPC, 1860
• Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
• Section 12, Section 23, Section 31(1), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
• Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None explicitly overruled.

x) Case is Related to Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Family Law, Criminal Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose from prolonged disputes between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband following their marriage in April 2015. Within a year, allegations of cruelty and dowry demands were raised by the wife, leading to the registration of multiple criminal cases. Despite court-mediated reconciliation attempts, the couple remained separated for nine years. The appellant sought dissolution of the marriage and equitable maintenance under Article 142, while the respondent contested interim maintenance obligations.

The pivotal legal issue involved the applicability of Article 142 to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable marital breakdown, a concept not statutorily recognized in Indian divorce laws. Additionally, the Court examined the equitable determination of permanent alimony in light of the parties’ financial capacities and social status.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 30 April 2015. Within a year, disputes arose, leading to prolonged separation.
2. The appellant filed complaints under Sections 498A, 323, 504 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. These allegations included cruelty, hurt, and dowry demands.
3. The appellant also sought protection under Section 12 of the PWDV Act and interim maintenance under Section 23.
4. In multiple litigations spanning over nine years, courts attempted mediation without success.
5. Despite living separately, both parties filed appeals challenging interim maintenance orders. The respondent contested arrears of ₹65 Lakhs ordered by the courts below.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the marriage could be dissolved under Article 142 due to irretrievable breakdown?

ii) What constitutes a fair quantum of permanent alimony in matrimonial disputes involving financially capable spouses?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The appellant contended that the marriage had completely broken down, rendering reconciliation impossible. She sought divorce under Article 142, citing failed mediation attempts.

ii) She argued that the respondent, earning significantly more than her, had an obligation to ensure her financial stability post-dissolution of the marriage. She sought a one-time settlement of ₹5 to ₹7 Crores.

iii) The appellant emphasized the respondent’s higher income as Vice President of a bank and her limited financial resources compared to him.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The respondent argued against the allegations of cruelty and dowry, highlighting that the appellant was gainfully employed and financially independent.

ii) He contended that his obligations towards dependents, including parents and an aunt, limited his capacity to pay a substantial alimony amount.

iii) The respondent proposed ₹50 Lakhs as a one-time settlement, which he deemed reasonable given the appellant’s employment status.

H) JUDGEMENT

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142, holding that irretrievable breakdown of marriage constitutes a valid ground for divorce when:

• Cohabitation ceases for an extended period.
• Mediation efforts fail repeatedly.
• Allegations of cruelty and pending litigations preclude reconciliation.

The Court emphasized that the failure of the marriage rendered its continuation purposeless, warranting judicial intervention.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that financial obligations in matrimonial disputes should balance the dependent spouse’s needs with the paying spouse’s financial capacity. Maintenance is not punitive but ensures dignity and reasonable comfort.

c) GUIDELINES

i) Irretrievable breakdown can justify dissolution under Article 142, provided all reconciliation attempts fail.

ii) Courts must consider social, financial status, and obligations while determining alimony.

iii) Maintenance awards must aim for fairness, avoiding excessive or inadequate amounts.

iv) Alimony decisions should consider the earning capacity, dependents, and liabilities of the paying spouse.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision reaffirms Article 142 as a powerful tool for dispensing justice in unique matrimonial disputes. It also underscores the Court’s equitable approach to determining alimony, balancing fairness with financial realities. While the ruling addresses the appellant’s financial security, the stipulated alimony reflects judicial restraint in awarding excessive claims.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar [2011] 6 SCR 118; (2011) 5 SCC 234.
2. Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri [1997] 2 SCR 875; (1997) 4 SCC 226.
3. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023] 5 SCR 165; (2022) 15 SCC 754.
4. Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar [2011] 9 SCR 371; (2011) 13 SCC 112.
5. Rajnesh v. Neha [2020] 13 SCR 1093; (2021) 2 SCC 32.

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India, Article 142.
2. IPC, 1860, Sections 498A, 323, 504.
3. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 3/4.
4. PWDV Act, 2005, Sections 12, 23, 31(1).
5. CrPC, 1973, Section 482.