KIRAN JYOT MAINIversusANISH PRAMOD PATEL

                 [2024] 7 S.C.R. 942 : 2024 INSC 530

                            Kiran Jyot Maini
                                   v.
                           Anish Pramod Patel
                (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2915-2918 of 2024)
                                15 July 2024
           [Vikram Nath* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       Long-standing separation between the parties, multiple prolonged
       litigations pending adjudication, several failed attempts at
       reconciliation. Issue was as regards interim maintenance however,
       in view of irretrievable break down of marriage, marriage between
       the appellant-wife and respondent-husband was dissolved in
       exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
       Amount of permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent to
       the appellant.

                                 Headnotes†
       Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of powers
       under – Dissolution of marriage in view of its irretrievable
       break down – Parties cohabited for less than a year and
       were living separately for last nine years – Grave allegations
       of cruelty, hurt and dowry demands made by the appellant-
       wife against the respondent-husband – Multiple civil/criminal
       proceedings pending – Failed attempts of reconciliation:
       Held: Inherent powers to dissolve a marriage under Article 142
       are exercised where the Court finds that the marriage is dead,
       unworkable, beyond repair, emotionally perished and has thus
       irretrievably broken down, even though no grounds for divorce
       as provided in the applicable law are made out in the facts
       of the case – In the present case, the marriage between the
       parties has completely broken down – Parties have also mutually
       agreed that they have no intention of continuing their union as
       husband and wife – Orders and judgments of the courts below
       set aside – Marriage between the parties dissolved and the
       decree of divorce granted in exercise of powers under
       Article 142. [Paras 15, 18, 20, 34]

* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                           943

                    Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel


     Maintenance – Permanent alimony – Grant of – Marriage
     between the parties dissolved in exercise of powers under
     Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Respondent-husband
     working as the Vice President of a bank earned more than
     Rs. 5 Lakhs per month as net salary whereas appellant-wife
     had a salary of Rs.1,39,000/- per month – Appellant demanded
     Rs. 5 to 7 Crores as one-time settlement, the respondent
     offered to pay Rs. 50 Lakhs:

     Held: Both the parties have high standards of living, which the
     appellant-wife continued to enjoy after their separation as well –
     Though both of them are well qualified and gainfully employed,
     the respondent earns approximately five times the monthly income
     of the appellant – Respondent has certain obligations towards
     three dependants, his own expenses, and certain bank loans,
     but he also evidently has the financial capacity to maintain his
     former wife – He has the legal obligation as also the financial
     capacity to maintain his wife after dissolution of marriage – Award
     of maintenance or permanent alimony should not be penal but
     should be for the purposes of ensuring a decent living standard
     for the wife – Keeping in view the social and financial status of
     the parties, their current employments as well as future prospects,
     standards of living, and their obligations, liabilities, and other
     expenses, respondent to pay Rs.2 Crores towards permanent
     alimony to the appellant within the time stipulated. [Paras 30,
     32-34]
     Maintenance – Permanent alimony – Fair amount of – Law
     as regards adjudication and determination of one-time
     settlement – Factors to be considered – Discussed.

                               Case Law Cited

     Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar [2011] 6 SCR 118 : (2011)
     5 SCC 234; Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri [1997] 2 SCR
     875 : (1997) 4 SCC 226; Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
     [2023] 5 SCR 165 : (2022) 15 SCC 754; Vinny Paramvir Parmar
     v. Paramvir Parmar [2011] 9 SCR 371 : 2011 (13) SCC 112;
     Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal [2012] 7 SCR
     607 : (2012) 7 SCC 288; Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [2020]
     13 SCR 1093 : (2021) 2 SCC 32 – relied on.
944                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [2017] 3 SCR 702 : (2017) 15
       SCC 801; Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199;
       Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715 –
       referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Constitution of India; Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act,
       1961; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005;
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                               List of Keywords

       Article 142 of the Constitution of India; Inherent powers to
       dissolve a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India;
       Irretrievable break down of marriage; Marriage completely broken
       down; Dissolution of marriage; Marriage dissolved in exercise
       of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India; Decree
       of divorce granted in exercise of powers under Article 142 of
       the Constitution of India; One-time settlement in matrimonial
       disputes; Maintenance; Permanent alimony; Fair amount of
       permanent alimony; One-time settlement; Matrimonial disputes;
       Separation;Reconciliation failed; Interim maintenance; Allegations
       of cruelty, hurt and dowry demands; Social and financial status
       of the parties.

                              Case Arising From

       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2915-
       2918 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2023 of the High Court of
       Delhi at New Delhi in CRLMC No.406 of 2023 and CRLMA No. 4294,
       4907 and 17294 of 2023
       With
       Criminal Appeal Nos. 2919 - 2922 of 2024

                           Appearances for Parties

       Gaurav Bhatia, Sr. Adv., Pawanshree Agrawal, Utkarsh Jaiswal,
       Advs. for the Appellant.
       Sameer Kumar, Adv. for the Respondent.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                         945

                        Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel


                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                     Judgment
       Vikram Nath, J.
       CRL. APPEAL NOS…………../2024@ SLP(CRL.) NOS.672-
       675/2024:
1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present appeals arise out of the impugned order dated 01.12.2023
       passed by the Delhi High Court in CRL.M.C. 406/2023 & CRL.M.A.
       4294/2023, CRL.M.A. 4907/2023, CRL.M.A. 17294/2023, whereby
       the Court has directed the respondent to pay only 20% of the total
       arrears of interim maintenance granted by the Additional Sessions
       Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar to the appellant in appeals before it. The
       present appeals also challenge the rejection of the appellant’s prayer
       for attachment of bank account of the respondent and payment of the
       complete arrears of Rs. 65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Five Lakhs only),
       as on date of the impugned judgement, towards interim maintenance.
3.     The factual background of the present case is that the marriage
       between the appellant -wife and the respondent-husband was
       solemnized on 30.04.2015 and, within one year, on 13.04.2016 FIR
       No.34/2016 was registered on the basis of the complaint made by the
       appellant-wife at Police Station Mahila Thana, Gautam Budh Nagar,
       U.P. under Sections 498A/323/504 of Indian Penal Code, 18601 and
       Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.2 In respondent’s Criminal
       Miscellaneous Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking
       stay on arrest and quashing of FIR, vide order dated 06.05.2016
       the High Court referred the parties to mediation and thereby granted
       stay on arrest of the respondent. The Writ Petition was subsequently
       dismissed on merit vide order dated 22.09.2016.
4.     Appellant thereafter preferred Application No. 4622 of 2016 under
       Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
       20053 before Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, wherein an
       application seeking interim maintenance had also been filed by her


1    In short, “IPC”
2    In short, “Act, 1961”
3    In short, “PWDV Act”
946                                                         [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       under Section 23 of the PWDV Act. The Judicial Magistrate, vide
       order dated 10.05.2018, directed the respondent to pay interim
       maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Thousand Only)
       to the appellant. Both the parties challenged this order through two
       separate appeals before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gautam
       Budh Nagar. Vide order dated 01.02.2019, the Additional Sessions
       Judge modified the order of the Judicial Magistrate and directed
       the respondent to pay Rs.45,000/- per month to the appellant and
       Rs.55,000/- per month to her daughter. The appeal preferred by the
       respondent was dismissed.
5.     Aggrieved by the order of interim maintenance, the respondent
       preferred an Application bearing No. 12860/2019 under Section 482
       of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.4 before the High Court
       of Allahabad and the matter was again referred to mediation vide
       order dated 09.04.2019. The mediation between the parties failed on
       06.07.2019 and the appellant preferred a Criminal Application No.
       41/2019 under Section 31(1) of PWDV Act against the respondent
       for non-compliance of order dated 01.02.2019 i.e. for non-payment
       of interim maintenance. Summons were issued by the Court of
       learned Additional Civil Judge, Third, Gautam Budh Nagar. The
       summons were challenged by the respondent before the High Court
       of Allahabad through Application No. 33533/2019 under Section 482
       of CrPC. Vide order dated 16.09.2019, the summons were stayed and
       vide order dated 13.12.2019, the High Court of Allahabad directed
       expeditious disposal of application of appellant under Section 12 of
       PWDV Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate as there was no
       stay operating in the proceedings.
6.     Upon application made by the respondent, the proceedings in
       Application No. 4622 of 2016 under Section 12 of PWDV Act and
       Criminal Application No. 41/2019 under Section 31(1) of PWDV
       Act were transferred to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated
       13.08.2021 passed by this Court. Case No. 41/2019 was registered
       at Delhi as Case No. 882/2022 and Case No. 4622/2016 was
       registered as Case No. 691/2022. Notices were issued to the parties
       on 04.04.2022 by the Mahila Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi. In the meantime,
       the High Court of Allahabad vide order dated 14.03.2023 dismissed


4    In short, “CrPC
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                        947

                    Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel


     the applications filed by the respondent under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
     being Application No. 33533/2019 and Application No. 12860/2019
     as infructuous on the statement made by his counsel. Respondent
     preferred a Criminal Revision Petition and a Criminal Miscellaneous
     Application before the High Court of Delhi which were registered as
     Criminal Revision Petition No. 298 of 2023 and Criminal Miscellaneous
     Case No. 1951 of 2023, respectively, praying for similar reliefs as
     before and challenging the orders of interim maintenance.
7.   The appellant filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
     India read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking appropriate directions
     including attachment of the accounts of the respondent, in the cases
     pending before the Mahila Court, Tis Hazari, Central, New Delhi,
     and the same was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
     406 of 2023. Vide order dated 08.05.2023, the High Court of Delhi
     disposed of the Miscellaneous Application file by the appellant in
     the petition and directed the respondent to pay 10% of the total
     arrears of interim maintenance due till 31.12.2022, that is, 10% of
     Rs. 52,95,000/- as immediate interim relief to the petitioner therein
     within a period of fifteen days from the date of the order.
8.   In the proceedings before the Mahila Court at Tis Hazari, Delhi, the
     above order of the High Court was modified and the Court directed
     the respondent to pay Rs. 2 Lakhs to the appellant within twenty-four
     hours and remaining amount of Rs. 3,92,500/- (Rupees Three Lacs
     Ninety-Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) before 09.06.2023.
9.   The High Court of Delhi while finally disposing of the appellant’s
     petition under Article 227 along with criminal revision and the
     miscellaneous application filed by the respondent, directed the
     respondent to pay 20% of the total arrears of interim maintenance to
     the petitioner therein, that is, 20 % of 65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Five
     Lakhs only) within a period of twenty days. The High Court further
     rejected the appellant’s prayer for attachment of the respondent’s
     bank accounts and for payment of complete arrears of maintenance
     as on the date of the judgment, towards interim maintenance granted
     to the appellant vide order dated 01.02.2019 passed by the Additional
     Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Appeal Nos.39 & 62 of 2018.
     The High Court further directed the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila
     Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Court to decide the quantum of the
     interim maintenance amount payable monthly by the respondent to
948                                                         [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       the appellant in the case pending before it within three months, after
       taking into consideration income affidavit of both the parties. This
       order is challenged before us by the appellant wife on the ground
       that the respondent husband has disregarded the order of interim
       maintenance by not paying any amount towards interim maintenance
       since the last 5½ years.
10. The respondent-husband has contested against these appeals on
    the grounds that the appellant has been gainfully employed all these
    years during the pendency of the cases, has several assets in the
    form of immovable property, and with regard to her minor daughter
    from her previous marriage, she has already received maintenance
    amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs. The learned senior counsel for both the
    parties vehemently disagreed on the amount of interim maintenance
    that ought to be paid to the appellant by the respondent. But they
    appear to be in agreement of the strained relationship between the
    parties which is stated by both parties to be beyond the scope of
    reconciliation.
11. This Court also heard the parties in camera to discuss the possibility
    of a reunion but during the course of the proceedings both parties
    stated that they are willing to have their marriage annulled by mutual
    consent as there remains no possibility of the parties reuniting and
    the marriage now only exists on paper.
12. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the respective parties
    at length.
13. At the outset it is relevant to be noted and does not seem to be
    in dispute that differences arose between the parties within the
    first year of marriage itself and the appellant-wife and respondent-
    husband have been living separately since the last nine years. It also
    appears from the record that the parties were referred to mediation
    at several stages by different courts and all efforts for reconciliation
    and to continue the marriage have failed, and there is no possibility
    of a reunion between the parties. Thus, it appears that the marriage
    between the parties has irretrievably broken down.
14. It is also apparent from the record that complaint for cruelty, hurt,
    and dowry demand against the respondent was registered by the
    appellant within the first 11 months of their marriage followed by an
    application seeking protection under section 12 of PWDV Act filed
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                       949

                     Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel


     by the appellant. An application seeking interim maintenance was
     filed by the appellant under section 31(1) of the PWDV Act. Shortly
     thereafter, the respondent filed a petition under section17(1)(d) of
     the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking dissolution of marriage on
     grounds of cruelty. All these proceedings have since been pending
     and several challenges have been made by both parties in the order
     of interim maintenance as granted by the Judicial Magistrate and
     subsequently modified by the Additional Sessions Judge.
15. The above admitted facts of long-standing separation between the
    parties, prolonged and multiple litigations pending adjudication, and
    several failed attempts at reconciliation are evidence of the fact that
    the marriage between the parties has completely broken down.
16. In Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar,5 this Court observed
    that a marriage can be dissolved by the courts on the grounds of
    irretrievable breakdown of marriage only when it appears that it has
    become impossible to save the marriage, all efforts for reunion have
    failed and the Court is convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that
    there are no chances of the marriage surviving and succeeding.
17. Further, this Court had observed in Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin
    Zaveri,6 that upon considering the cumulative effect of all necessary
    factors and that the marriage has perished due to long standing
    differences between the parties, and thus no useful purpose, emotional
    or practical, would be achieved by prolonging the suffering of the
    parties and in postponing the inevitable end to their relationship, the
    Court can pass an order for dissolution of marriage.
18. This Court in a catena of judgments over the years has exercised
    its inherent powers to dissolve a marriage under Article 142 of
    the Constitution of India where it finds that the marriage is dead,
    unworkable, beyond repair, emotionally perished and has thus
    irretrievably broken down, even though no grounds for divorce as
    provided in the applicable law are made out in the facts of the case.
19. In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan,7 this Court noted that it
    has the discretionary power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution


5   [2011] 6 SCR 118 : (2011) 5 SCC 234
6   [1997] 2 SCR 875 : (1997) 4 SCC 226
7   [2023] 5 SCR 165 : (2022) 15 SCC 754
950                                                          [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       of India to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable
       breakdown of marriage while exercising the discretion cautiously on
       the basis of the factual matrix in each case, evaluated on objective
       criteria and factors. This Court further held that whether the marriage
       has irretrievably broken down is to be factually examined and firmly
       established. The factors to be considered in such examination are
       such as, period of cohabitation after marriage, when they had last
       cohabited, nature and gravity of allegations made by the parties,
       orders passed in previous or pending legal proceedings, attempts at
       reconciliation or settlement and their outcomes, period of separation
       and such other similar considerations.
20. In the present case, the parties cohabited after marriage for less than
    a year and have been living separately since the last nine years. The
    nature of allegations made by the appellant are grave as, according
    to her, she was subjected to cruelty, hurt, and dowry demands by
    the respondent, and she has also initiated criminal action against her
    husband. Multiple attempts at reconciliation between the appellant
    and respondent have been made by the Courts at different stages
    but all efforts have been futile. Multiple legal proceedings are pending
    between the parties and do not appear to possibly conclude in the
    near future. This factual position is admitted by both the parties before
    this Court and they have also mutually agreed that they have no
    intention of continuing their union as husband and wife. Therefore, we
    are of the opinion that while the interest of the appellant-wife to be
    compensated needs to be protected through a one-time settlement,
    this is a fit case to exercise the discretionary powers vested in this
    Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to dissolve
    the marriage between the parties.
21. Thus, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and
    analysing the same in light of the considerations stated above, the
    marriage between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband is
    ordered to be dissolved in exercise of this Court’s powers under
    Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
22. The next contention in this case is with respect to the amount of
    maintenance to be paid by the respondent-husband to the appellant-
    wife. While the issue of interim maintenance is now closed with the
    dissolution of the marriage, the interest of the wife still needs to be
    protected so that she does not suffer financially. The parties have
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                        951

                      Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel


      vehemently argued and contested each other’s financial position,
      their individual incomes, and the assets owned by each other. In
      order to establish the correct financial position of both the parties,
      they have filed their respective affidavits of income and assets as
      ordered by this Court.
23. Before we go into the details of the financial position of the parties,
    we find it necessary to discuss the law laid down for adjudication
    and determination of one-time settlement in matrimonial disputes.
    This Court in a series of judgments has touched upon the question
    of one-time settlement and the factors that should be taken into
    consideration while determining fair amount of permanent alimony.
    While the cases deal with maintenance under different provisions
    of law, the principle for determination of maintenance by way of
    one-time settlement apply equally to all statutes and personal laws.
24. In Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar,8 this Court held
    that there cannot be a fixed formula or a straitjacket rubric for fixing
    the amount of permanent alimony and only broad principles can be
    laid down. The question of maintenance is subjective to each case
    and depends on various factors and circumstances as presented in
    individual cases. This Court in the above judgment stated that the
    courts shall consider the following broad factors while determining
    permanent alimony – income and properties of both the parties
    respectively, conduct of the parties, status, social and financial, of
    the parties, their respective personal needs, capacity and duty to
    maintain others dependant on them, husband’s own expenses, wife’s
    comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to
    during the subsistence of the marriage, among other supplementary
    factors. This was further reiterated by this Court in Vishwanath
    Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, 9 while observing that
    permanent alimony is to be granted after considering largely the
    social status, conduct of the parties, the parties’ lifestyle, and other
    such ancillary factors.
25. A two-judge bench of this Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another,10
    elaborated upon the broad criteria and the factors to be considered


8    [2011] 9 SCR 371 : (2011) 13 SCC 112
9    [2012] 7 SCR 607 : (2012) 7 SCC 288
10   [2020] 13 SCR 1093 : (2021) 2 SCC 32
952                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       for determining the quantum of maintenance. This judgment lays
       down a comprehensive framework for determining the quantum
       of maintenance in matrimonial disputes, particularly focusing on
       permanent alimony. The primary objective is to prevent the dependent
       spouse from being reduced to destitution or vagrancy due to the failure
       of the marriage, rather than punishing the other spouse. The court
       emphasizes that there is no fixed formula for calculating maintenance
       amount; instead, it should be based on a balanced consideration of
       various factors. These factors include but are not limited to:
       i.     Status of the parties, social and financial.
       ii.    Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children.
       iii.   Qualifications and employment status of the parties.
       iv.    Independent income or assets owned by the parties.
       v.     Maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial home.
       vi.    Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities.
       vii.   Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
       viii. Financial capacity of husband, his income, maintenance
             obligations, and liabilities.
       The status of the parties is a significant factor, encompassing their
       social standing, lifestyle, and financial background. The reasonable
       needs of the wife and dependent children must be assessed, including
       costs for food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical expenses.
       The applicant’s educational and professional qualifications, as well
       as their employment history, play a crucial role in evaluating their
       potential for self-sufficiency. If the applicant has any independent
       source of income or owns property, this will also be taken into account
       to determine if it is sufficient to maintain the same standard of living
       experienced during the marriage. Additionally, the court considers
       whether the applicant had to sacrifice employment opportunities
       for family responsibilities, such as child-rearing or caring for elderly
       family members, which may have impacted their career prospects.
26. Furthermore, the financial capacity of the husband is a critical
    factor in determining permanent alimony. The Court shall examine
    the husband’s actual income, reasonable expenses for his own
    maintenance, and any dependents he is legally obligated to support.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                            953

                      Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel


      His liabilities and financial commitments are also to be considered
      to ensure a balanced and fair maintenance award. The court must
      consider the husband’s standard of living and the impact of inflation
      and high living costs. Even if the husband claims to have no source of
      income, his ability to earn, given his education and qualifications, is to
      be taken into account. The courts shall ensure that the relief granted
      is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which
      the aggrieved party was accustomed. The court’s approach should
      be to balance all relevant factors to avoid maintenance amounts
      that are either excessively high or unduly low, ensuring that the
      dependent spouse can live with reasonable comfort post-separation.
27. Additionally, the judgment addresses specific scenarios such as the
    right of residence under the PWDV Act, the impact of the wife’s income
    on maintenance, and the needs of minor children. Even if the wife is
    earning, it does not bar her from receiving maintenance; the Court
    should assess whether her income suffices to maintain a lifestyle
    similar to that in the matrimonial home. The judgment also considers
    the expenses associated with the care of minor children, including
    educational expenses and reasonable amounts for extracurricular
    activities. Serious disability or illness of a spouse, child, or dependent
    family member, requiring constant care and recurrent expenditure, is
    also a significant consideration. Key precedents cited to reach this broad
    framework include Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain,11 Shailja & Anr.
    v. Khobbanna,12 and Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha,13
    which reinforce these principles and provide a sound, reasonable and
    fair basis for determining maintenance in subsequent cases.
28. In the case at hand, both the parties have submitted their affidavits
    of assets as ordered by this Court. It appears from the material on
    record that both the parties are well educated, gainfully employed,
    have high standards of living, and also have dependants to be taken
    care of. The respondent-husband is working as the Vice President
    of Deutsche Bank and has stated in the affidavit to be earning a
    gross monthly salary of around over Rs. 8 Lakhs and more than
    Rs. 5 Lakhs per month as net salary after deductions. Respondent


11   [2017] 3 SCR 702 : (2017) 15 SCC 801
12   (2018) 12 SCC 199
13   (2014) 16 SCC 715
954                                                       [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       states to have dependant parents who reside in the United States of
       America, but they also have a cumulative annual income of over Rs.
       28 Lakhs. Respondent is responsible for their medical expenses and
       stay when they are visiting India. Respondent has also stated that
       he has a dependant aunt with around Rs.55,000/- medical expenses
       monthly being borne by him for her. Apart from this, the respondent
       has estimated his personal monthly expenses to be around Rs. 4
       Lakhs. The respondent has submitted that, apart from certain stock
       investments and fixed deposits, he has no other properties in the
       form of assets. This submission is challenged by the appellant-wife
       by stating that respondent-husband allegedly owns a property in
       Pune which was their matrimonial home and he also owns another
       immovable property in New Jersey, USA.
29. The appellant-wife in her affidavit of assets has stated that she is
    currently working as Head of Human Resources with Sarla Holdings
    (P) Ltd. with a salary of Rs.1,39,000/- per month. She states that she
    is currently staying in her parental home for which she pays rent to
    her parents, and her dependants include her parents and her minor
    daughter. She has estimated that her monthly necessary expenses
    amount to over Rs. 4 Lakhs. Apart from this, she has also stated that
    she has to spend around Rs. 75,000/- per month towards the living
    and education expenses of her minor daughter. Respondent has
    vehemently contested this and has impressed upon his submission
    that the daughter is appellant’s child from her previous marriage and
    she had received Rs.40 Lakhs as permanent alimony in that case
    towards the maintenance of the appellant and her daughter. She
    has submitted that her assets include certain immovable properties
    which she bought in the last few years.
30. Both the parties appear to have similar standards of living, which
    the appellant-wife has continued to enjoy after their separation as
    well. It is evident from their submissions that though both of them
    are well qualified and gainfully employed, the respondent-husband
    earns approximately five times the monthly income of the appellant-
    wife. Respondent-husband has certain obligations towards three
    dependants, his own expenses, and certain bank loans, but he also
    evidently has the financial capacity to maintain his former wife.
31. This Court explored the possibility of one-time settlement between
    the parties and in the course of the proceedings, the appellant-wife
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                          955

                    Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel


     had put forth a demand of Rs. 5 to 7 Crores as one-time settlement
     which would cover her maintenance expenses and necessary
     requirements. On the other hand, the respondent-husband expressed
     his willingness to pay only Rs. 50 Lakhs towards permanent alimony,
     submitting that the appellant is employed, has several assets, and
     that he has no obligation to maintain her daughter as he never
     adopted her.
32. It is not in dispute that the respondent has the legal obligation as
    also the financial capacity to maintain his wife after dissolution of
    marriage. It is also necessary to ensure that the award of maintenance
    or permanent alimony should not be penal but should be for the
    purposes of ensuring a decent living standard for the appellant wife.
    Considering the material on record, the factors stated above, the
    considerations noted herein, and the arguments advanced by the
    learned senior counsel on both sides, this Court is of the opinion
    that the demand made by the appellant is exceptionally high but, at
    the same time, the amount offered by the respondent is insufficient
    in the broader rubric of maintenance considerations.
33. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the social and
    financial status of the parties, their current employments as well as
    future prospects, standards of living, and their obligations, liabilities,
    and other expenses, a one-time settlement amount of Rs. 2 Crores
    would be a balanced and fair amount. This amount would also
    cover all pending and future claims. Thus, we fix the said amount
    as permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent to the appellant
    within a period of four months.
34. Consequently, the appeals are allowed, the orders and judgments
    of the courts below are set aside, any pending cases be disposed
    of accordingly, and the decree of divorce be granted in exercise
    of this Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
    Further, the respondent-husband shall pay Rs. 2 Crores towards
    permanent alimony to the appellant-wife within the time stipulated
    above. Parties would be at liberty to file certified copies of this order
    before the respective Courts where the cases, both civil and criminal,
    are pending whereupon the Court concerned shall pass appropriate
    orders closing such proceedings.
35. No order as to costs.
956                                                      [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


       CRL. APPEAL NOS……………….@SLP(CRL.) NOS-1168-1171
       OF 2024:
36. Leave granted.
37. These appeals are also disposed of in similar terms/directions/
    observations, as above.

       Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey