A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around the issue of quantum of maintenance and permanent alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Supreme Court adjudicated the financial claims of the respondent-wife and son after two decades of estrangement between the parties. The marriage had irretrievably broken down, and after prolonged litigation over interim maintenance, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution to dissolve the marriage. The Court awarded a one-time settlement amount of ₹5 crores to the wife and an additional ₹1 crore for the son’s maintenance and future security.

The judgment delved into the jurisdiction of family courts under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act and clarified that maintenance claims survive even after the withdrawal of the divorce petition. The ruling relied upon significant precedents like Rajnesh v. Neha and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan to reinforce the need for financial transparency in maintenance disputes and the principles for determining permanent alimony.

Keywords: Quantum of maintenance, Permanent alimony, Pendente lite maintenance, Divorce, One-time settlement, Maintenance and financial security, Article 142 of the Constitution

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title

Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain

ii) Case Number

Civil Appeal Nos. 14277-14278 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date

10 December 2024

iv) Court

Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum

Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

vi) Author

Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 543 : 2024 INSC 961

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 13(1)(ia), 24, and 26
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India (extraordinary jurisdiction of Supreme Court)

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)

None explicitly overruled.

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subject

• Family Law
• Matrimonial Law
• Law of Maintenance
• Constitutional Law (Article 142 of the Constitution of India)

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case stems from a matrimonial dispute spanning two decades. The parties married in 1998, had a son in 2001, but separated in 2004. Ever since, multiple legal battles over maintenance, financial claims, and divorce ensued. The appellant-husband, a high-earning banker, resisted enhanced maintenance claims, while the respondent-wife, a non-earning homemaker, sought increased support. The litigation evolved from interim maintenance orders to the final settlement of permanent alimony.

The legal question revolved around whether the wife was entitled to enhanced maintenance despite the husband’s withdrawal of the divorce petition. Additionally, the case explored the obligations of a financially capable father towards his major son’s education and financial security. The Supreme Court, invoking its discretionary powers under Article 142, dissolved the marriage and settled the financial claims comprehensively.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• The parties married on 13 December 1998.
• They separated in January 2004.
• The appellant filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act in May 2004.
• The respondent filed for maintenance pendente lite (interim maintenance) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
• The Family Court awarded ₹18,000 per month, later enhanced to ₹20,000 by the High Court.
• The respondent filed for further enhancement in 2009, seeking ₹1,45,000 per month.
• The husband voluntarily increased the amount to ₹65,000 in 2015.
• The Family Court further enhanced it to ₹1,15,000 in 2018.
• The Delhi High Court upheld the enhancement in 2024.
• The appellant challenged the Delhi High Court’s order in the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Family Court loses jurisdiction over maintenance claims under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act after withdrawal of the divorce petition?
2. Whether the financial needs of the wife and son warranted enhanced permanent alimony?
3. Whether a father is obligated to financially support a major son for education and security?
4. Whether Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked to dissolve the marriage despite the absence of a pending divorce petition?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• The Family Court became functus officio after the withdrawal of the divorce petition, and thus, it could not adjudicate pending maintenance applications.
• The son had attained majority, and thus, he was not entitled to maintenance under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
• The wife concealed financial details and was attempting to extract an exorbitant sum.
• The interest of 12% per annum on arrears was punitive in nature and unfair.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• The maintenance claim survives despite the withdrawal of the divorce petition.
• The appellant concealed his financial status, which demonstrated bad faith.
• The increased financial needs of the son (higher education) warranted additional support.
• The appellant had the capacity to pay, given his high earnings and substantial assets.

H) JUDGEMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi

• Family Courts retain jurisdiction under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act even after the withdrawal of the divorce petition.
• The husband’s financial obligations towards the wife and son must be assessed based on his financial capacity and the standard of living they enjoyed before separation.
• Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to dissolve marriages that have irretrievably broken down.

b) Obiter Dicta (If Any)

• The Court reaffirmed the duty of financial disclosure in maintenance disputes, emphasizing transparency.

c) Guidelines (If Any)

1. Maintenance claims under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act do not become infructuous upon withdrawal of the divorce petition.
2. Financial transparency is paramount in determining alimony claims.
3. A major child may be entitled to maintenance if required for higher education.
4. One-time settlements must reflect the financial capacity of the paying spouse.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces financial fairness in matrimonial disputes. It clarifies that maintenance claims cannot be negated by procedural maneuvers. The judgment ensures that high-earning spouses cannot evade financial responsibilities by simply withdrawing divorce petitions.

By awarding ₹5 crores as permanent alimony and ₹1 crore for the son’s future, the Court provided a balanced resolution. The judgment strengthens financial justice and upholds the dignity of dependent spouses and children.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

• Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 32]
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [(2022) 15 SCC 754]
• Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1724]