A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The appeal arises from a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Nagpur and upheld by the Bombay High Court, concerning whether permanent alimony (one-time lump sum) should be awarded to the wife after dissolution under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage was short-lived (parties cohabited roughly two months), no children were born, and the husband subsequently remarried (2019). The sole live dispute before the Supreme Court was quantum of permanent alimony. The husband exhibited inconsistent disclosures regarding income and assets; the wife averred multiple income streams for him (gym, salaried work, rental receipts) while the husband claimed modest employment with limited monthly earning and personal liabilities.

The Court applied the framework in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (2024) examining status, reasonable needs, earning capacity, assets, standard of living, dependants and liabilities and found the husband’s disclosure not bonafide. Balancing equity and non-punitive relief, the Court directed a one-time settlement of Rs. 10,00,000 as permanent alimony to extinguish present and future claims, to be paid within three months. The decree of divorce was left undisturbed.

Keywords: Divorce; Permanent alimony; One-time settlement; Income disclosure; Equity and justice.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The present litigation traverses the friction between procedural finality of a divorce decree and equitable obligation of support post-dissolution. The respondent-husband filed for divorce under Section 13, HMA alleging mental cruelty and desertion; the Family Court found cruelty on evidence and dissolved the marriage; the High Court affirmed. Subsequent to those courts’ conclusions, the husband disclosed (through counsel in Supreme Court proceedings) that he had remarried (2019) and proposed mediation for a one-time lump sum to settle the wife’s maintenance claim. Mediation failed.

The Supreme Court therefore confined itself to the remnant dispute quantum of permanent alimony rather than re-litigating the basic finding of breakdown. In doing so, the Court invoked the guiding principles articulated in Rajnesh v. Neha and recent precedent (Kiran Jyot Maini), which provide a multi-factorial compass for permanent alimony: parties’ status, reasonable needs, earning capacities, assets, standard of living, sacrifices for the family, husband’s liabilities, and the impact of remarriage and fresh dependants on his ability to pay. The procedural posture thus required the Court to weigh equity (protecting a dependent spouse from destitution) against practical fairness (not imposing punitive burden on a remarried husband with new obligations).

The Court also addressed credibility and frankness in asset disclosure a recurring theme in maintenance jurisprudence and observed that evasive disclosure cannot be condoned. Applying these standards to contested affidavits of income and documentary snippets (photographs, advertisements) the Court resolved contested factual narrations and fixed a fair lump-sum to terminate future claims and secure the wife’s financial interest.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The marriage was solemnized on 27.06.2012 after about four years’ courtship; cohabitation lasted only about two months at the matrimonial house in Nagpur. No children were born. The husband filed Petition No. A-943/2014 under Section 13 HMA (cruelty and desertion). The wife earlier sought annulment under Section 6 FCA read with Section 34, Specific Relief Act, 1963, alleging fraud to extract money; that petition was dismissed by the Family Court (01.08.2014) and was not appealed. The Family Court initially granted an ex parte decree (09.01.2015) which was remitted by the High Court for trial; after full trial the Family Court (31.07.2017) allowed the husband’s petition on cruelty; the High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal (impugned order dated 25.04.2018).

During Supreme Court proceedings husband’s counsel disclosed husband’s remarriage (2019) and consented to mediation on lump sum mediation failed. Divergent affidavits were filed. The husband’s affidavit (04.11.2024) claimed employment as Outsource Operator at G.A. Digital Web World Pvt. Ltd. with monthly income Rs. 16,612, personal monthly expenses Rs. 24,000, no immovable property, and dependants (father, mother, brother, second wife) with limited dependent expenses. He disclosed a bank loan taken for earlier maintenance arrears and medical expenses.

The wife’s affidavit asserted the husband runs a gym (since 2014) earning >Rs.80,000 pm, salaried engagement with SPANCO ~Rs.50,000 pm, rental income ~Rs.30,000 pm, and ownership of two houses and three wives she annexed photographs and advertisements to substantiate the gym and tenanted premises. Earlier proceedings had produced a modest maintenance award (Rs.3,000 pm) under Section 125 CrPC which the husband had challenged. The conflicting accounts revealed incomplete and non-credible disclosures by the husband in the Court’s view; parties agreed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and sought only monetary settlement.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether a one-time lump sum can be awarded as permanent alimony under Section 13, HMA to meet the reasonable needs of the wife and extinguish future claims?

2. What factors and tests govern quantum of permanent alimony — and how should Rajnesh v. Neha and subsequent jurisprudence be applied?

3. To what extent does a husband’s remarriage and competing financial responsibilities affect his liability and the amount of alimony?

4. How should conflicting and non-forthright disclosures of income/assets be assessed while determining maintenance?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Family Court’s and High Court’s conclusions should be scrutinized; however, before the Supreme Court the appellant accepted dissolution but contested quantum. It was submitted that the respondent’s true income is substantial (gym, SPANCO salary, rental) and that the respondent concealed assets; hence a meaningful lump-sum must be fixed.

The appellant relied on documentary exhibits (photographs, advertisements) and the established tests in Rajnesh v. Neha to show the wife’s entitlement to a settlement that protects her standard of living and prevents destitution. The appellant also argued that the husband’s remarriage and claim of multiple dependants should not be a shield against fair maintenance.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that the husband is a daily-wage/contract electrician and later an Outsource Operator with meagre income; his earlier maintenance award (Rs.3,000 pm) indicates limited means and his liabilities (bank loan, dependants) restrain capacity. He denied ownership of immovable property and disputed the wife’s exaggerated income claim from a salon. The respondent submitted that any award must be fair and reflective of true earning capacity, not based on unverified assertions. He urged that the decree of divorce be maintained and, if alimony is awarded, it should not be disproportionate.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court refrained from re-examining the finding of cruelty because the parties agreed to divorce and the marriage had effectively ended after two months; the Court was not inclined to interfere with concurrent findings of the Family Court and High Court. The Court focused squarely on quantum of permanent alimony. It restated the comprehensive framework in Rajnesh v. Neha and the clarifications in Kiran Jyot Maini for determining permanent alimony emphasising that there is no mathematical formula but a balanced consideration of status, needs, qualifications, income, assets, standard of living, sacrifices, husband’s liabilities and dependants.

The Court scrutinised affidavits: the husband’s late and minimal disclosure (income Rs.16,612 pm, no property) was inconsistent with the wife’s documentary assertions (gym operations, SPANCO salary, rental receipts). Noting that the husband was not forthright and appeared to seek to evade liability, the Court declined to accept his low income claim at face value. The Court also observed that the wife’s claim of Rs.2,00,000 pm from a salon was implausible given absence of corroborative documents.

Balancing competing claims and the equities of remarriage (respondent bearing responsibility for a new family), the Court fixed a one-time settlement of Rs.10,00,000 as permanent alimony to cover pending and future claims, protect the appellant reasonably, and avoid punitive burden on respondent. The payment was directed within three months. The decree of divorce was upheld. No costs were ordered.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is that permanent alimony must be determined by a holistic appraisal of factors enumerated in Rajnesh v. Neha status, reasonable needs, earning capacity, assets, standard of living, sacrifices, husband’s liabilities and dependants and that courts are entitled to fix a one-time lump sum to meet those ends where appropriate. Where a husband’s disclosure is evasive and he has remarried thereby incurring fresh obligations, the court may impute realistic resources and award a fair lump sum that secures the dependent spouse from destitution without being punitive.

Credibility in financial disclosure is pivotal; non-disclosure or misrepresentation disentitles a party from reliance on such figures to reduce alimony. The Court thus applied these principles and fixed Rs.10,00,000 as equitable compensation to extinguish present and future claims.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court commented obiter on mediation: parties were rightly referred to mediation but failure to settle does not preclude substantive adjudication. The Court emphasised that maintenance jurisprudence must strike a balance relief should prevent destitution and preserve reasonable comfort but not serve as punishment. It reiterated that even where a wife earns, maintenance may still be justified if her income does not secure the matrimonial standard of living. The judgment also observed that adjudicatory courts may rely on circumstantial documentary evidence (photographs, advertisements) to scrutinise asset claims when direct disclosure is defective. These observations guide future trials and mediation conduct in similar fact patterns.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Apply the multi-factor test in Rajnesh v. Neha (status, needs, qualifications, employment, assets, standard of living, sacrifices, husband’s capacity, liabilities).

2. Treat one-time lump sum as a legitimate form of permanent alimony where it reasonably secures the dependent spouse and extinguishes future claims.

3. Demand frank, contemporaneous affidavits of income/assets; where disclosures are evasive, courts may draw adverse inferences or rely on independent material.

4. Consider impact of husband’s remarriage and new dependants but do not allow remarriage to be a shield for shirking statutory obligation; balance new obligations against past marital commitments.

5. Mediation is encouraged but failure should not delay adjudication indefinitely; courts may proceed to fix quantum on merits.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Court’s decision is pragmatic: it preserves the sanctity of concurrent judgments on dissolution while addressing the very real need to prevent a dependent spouse from becoming destitute. By awarding a one-time sum the Court achieved finality and practical justice.

The judgment underscores two enduring themes in maintenance jurisprudence:

(i) multi-factorial assessment rather than rigid arithmetics; and

(ii) the centrality of truthful financial disclosure.

The Court’s approach signals that evasive conduct will attract corrective treatment courts will not permit a party to hide behind minimalist affidavits to defeat maintenance obligations. Equally, by moderating the award to Rs.10,00,000 the Court avoided excessive, punitive recompense, reflecting judicial restraint and equitable balancing of competing obligations (including the husband’s remarriage).

For practitioners, this case reiterates the utility of documentary proof of assets and the strategic importance of seeking credible affidavits at earliest stages. For tribunals, it reinforces that lump-sum settlements can serve both compensatory and finality objectives where monthly maintenance is impractical or contentious. The decision aligns with precedents cited (Rajnesh; Kiran Jyot Maini; Manish Jain; Shailja; Sunita Kachwaha) and contributes to a consistent, contextual doctrine governing permanent alimony.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

2. Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 17824.

3. Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801.

4. Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199.

5. Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715.

6. Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1398 : 2025 INSC 135.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Family Courts Act, 1984.

3. Specific Relief Act, 1963.

4. Criminal Procedure Code (Section 125) — maintenance proceedings.