SAU. JIYAversusKULDEEP

                 [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1398 : 2025 INSC 135

                                    Sau. Jiya
                                       v.
                                    Kuldeep
                        (Civil Appeal No. 1301 of 2025)
                                 31 January 2025
            [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards permanent alimony to be given by
       respondent-husband to appellant-wife, post-divorce.

                                    Headnotes†
       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13 – Divorce – Permanent
       Alimony – Marriage between the parties dissolved by the
       family court on the ground of cruelty, on a petition filed by
       the respondent-husband – Decree of divorce affirmed by the
       High Court – Matter before this Court, wherein it has come to
       the knowledge that the respondent has re-married, thus the
       subsisting dispute as regards the maintenance:
       Held: Husband has already remarried, parties stayed together
       for only about two months after the marriage, have no intention
       to continue their marital relationship, the marriage between the
       appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has evidently broken
       down irretrievably – As such no inclination to interfere with the
       decree of divorce granted by the courts below – Parties failed
       to reach consensus on one-time settlement amount due to
       non-agreement on the financial position of the respondent – Evident
       from the perusal of the affidavits by both the parties that the
       husband not forthright in disclosure of his income and assets and
       is clearly attempting to escape his liability to support the appellant
       post-divorce – Court not to acquiesce to such conduct of the
       respondent-husband – Considering the facts and circumstances of
       the case, financial status of the parties, their standards of living, the
       fact that the respondent has already remarried and also bears the
       financial responsibility of his new family, amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-
       as a one-time settlement in favour of the appellant-wife to serve
       the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice – Said amount
       would fairly protect the interest of the appellant without imposing
       any punitive or unreasonable financial burden on the respondent,
* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            1399

                           Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep


     thus aiming to safeguard the interest of both the parties – Impugned
     order to the extent of finalising the grant of divorce decree to the
     parties, upheld. [Paras 16, 19-21]

                              Case Law Cited
     Rajnesh v. Neha [2020] 13 SCR 1093 : (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kiran
     Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel [2024] 7 SCR 942 : 2024 SCC
     OnLine SC 17824 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Family Courts Act, 1984; Specific Relief
     Act, 1963.

                             List of Keywords
     Divorce; Permanent alimony; One-time settlement; Income of the
     husband; Equity and justice; Family court; Maintenance amount;
     Marital relationship; Acquiesce to the conduct of the husband;
     Financial status; Financial responsibility; Punitive or unreasonable
     financial burden.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1301 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2018 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in FCA No. 37 of 2017

                         Appearances for Parties
     Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. for the Appellant.
     Shakul R. Ghatole, Vishwadeep Mate, Vatsalya Vigya, Advs. for
     the Respondent.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order

     Vikram Nath, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   The instant appeal arise out of the impugned order dated 25.04.2018
     passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur
1400                                                      [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


      in Family Court Appeal No. 37 of 2017 whereby the High Court
      dismissed the appellant’s appeal challenging the decree of divorce
      granted by the Family Court.
3.    The brief facts of the matter are that the marriage between the
      appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on
      27.06.2012 at Nagpur as per Hindu rights and customs after a
      courtship of about four years and the appellant started cohabiting
      with the respondent at the matrimonial house. The respondent
      filed Petition No. A-943 of 2014 before the Family Court, Nagpur
      under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 seeking grant of
      divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It was alleged by
      the respondent in the divorce petition that soon after the marriage,
      his father suffered some heart problem and was required to be
      hospitalized for about fifteen days during which the husband could
      not devote enough time to the appellant which became the cause
      of her anguish and displeasure. Resultantly, the appellant left the
      company of the respondent and went to her maternal home. It was
      further claimed by the respondent that he had made attempts to bring
      the appellant back to the matrimonial home who exhibited reluctance
      to return as she did not want to cohabit with him in a joint family.
      Therefore, it was stated that the parties stayed together for about
      only two months and there is no issue out of the wedlock.
4.    It was also brought forth by the respondent that the appellant had
      earlier filed a Petition No. A-1065/12 before the Family Court under
      Section 6 of the Family Courts Act, 19842 read with Section 34 of
      the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 12 of the HMA seeking
      declaration of marriage between the two as null and void on the
      ground that a fraud was played upon her and her family by the
      respondent and his family members whose sole intention behind
      the marriage was to extract money from the appellant’s parents.
      However, the said petition was dismissed by the Family Court vide
      its judgment dated 01.08.2014. The appellant neither preferred any
      appeal against the order dated 01.08.2014 nor joined back the
      company of the respondent-husband.
5.    The allegations of cruelty levelled by the respondent against the
      appellant mainly revolved around her threatening the respondent and


1    HMA
2    FCA
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        1401

                           Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep


     his family members of filing false and malicious criminal proceedings
     against them. The said allegations were vehemently denied by the
     appellant in her written statement before the Family Court wherein
     she stated that she treated her husband and his family members in a
     proper manner and always wished to cohabit with the husband but was
     rather constrained to reside separately as she was being subjected
     to physical and verbal abuse by the husband. The respondent also
     submitted that the appellant-wife has, during the cross-examination,
     suggested that he had an illicit relationship with the wife of his friend
     Gaurav Chawla and such a suggestion in itself would lead to mental
     cruelty upon the husband.
6.   As per the appellant, the respondent had obtained an ex-parte
     decree of divorce dated 09.01.2015 from the Family Court against
     which she appealed before the High Court and the High Court had
     remanded the matter back to the Family Court for a fresh trial after
     hearing both the parties.
7.   Thereafter, the Family Court, in view of the mandate of Section
     9 of FCA, made attempts to bring about an amicable settlement
     between the parties which failed. Subsequently, the Family Court
     after framing the issues, hearing the parties, examining the witnesses
     and perusing the record, allowed the respondent’s petition on the
     ground of cruelty and dissolved the marriage between the parties
     vide judgment dated 31.07.2017. The Family Court held that even
     though a continuous separation of two years was not established and
     the ground of desertion could not be proven, the ground of mental
     cruelty was sufficiently established by the respondent as the appellant
     had levelled false allegations of fraud, dowry demand, harassment
     and assassinated the husband’s character.
8.   Aggrieved by the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court in
     the favour of the respondent-husband, the appellant preferred an
     appeal before the High Court. The High Court, vide the impugned
     order, dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the order of the
     Family Court, thereby affirming the divorce decree. It was held that
     the appellant could not substantiate her claims against the husband
     with regard to marrying her with a view to extract money from her
     parents, which had also led to dismissal of her petition seeking
     annulment of marriage, and thus conclusively proves that she had
1402                                                      [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     levied false and baseless allegation of fraud against the husband
     and his family members. Further, it was held that the appellant-wife’s
     conduct in pestering the husband to leave his old family members and
     reside separately with the wife would tantamount to cruelty. Lastly,
     it was also held that the wife has treated the husband with cruelty
     by casting aspersions on his character during the cross-examination
     by making suggestions of an illicit relationship between the husband
     and his friend’s wife without any specific pleadings in this regard.
9.   Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.04.2018, the appellant
     is before us.
10. During the course of the proceedings in the matter before us, on
    15.03.2024, Learned counsel for the respondent-husband stated
    that his client has re-married in the year 2019 and suggested that
    in view of the changed circumstances, the parties may be referred
    to mediation for arriving at a one-time lump sum amount which may
    be paid by the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife. Learned
    counsel for the appellant-wife was not averse to the said suggestion.
    Accordingly, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
    parties, they were referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
    However, on 02.08.2024, we were apprised by the counsel for the
    parties that they have not been able to reach a settlement and hence,
    the matter was decided to be taken up on merits.
11. In the meanwhile, the respondent-husband was also directed to
    pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant-wife in pursuance of I.A.
    No.208023 of 2024 filed by the wife seeking the amount on account
    of expenses borne for physical attendance during the mediation
    proceedings.
12. During the contentions before us on 01.10.2024 with regard to
    the maintenance amount, Counsel for the appellant stated that
    the monthly income of the respondent is more than Rs.1,30,000/-
    (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) per month, as he is getting
    about Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) from Gym where he
    works and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from SPANCO. It
    was also submitted that the respondent has two houses in his name
    and also has three wives. Whereas the Counsel for the respondent
    submitted that the respondent is a daily-wage labourer as he works
    on contract basis as Electrician, and therefore, he gets a very nominal
    amount only for the days on which he gets work.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        1403

                           Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep


13. In pursuance of the said submissions, we had directed the parties
    to place all such facts on record by way of an affidavit because
    we found that only a meagre amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees
    three thousand only) per month was awarded as maintenance in
    proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
    19733 , which had also been challenged by the respondent by way
    of revision, which shows that the respondent does not want to
    support his wife at all, even though he got a divorce decree from
    the Family Court and also confirmed by the High Court. Accordingly,
    the respondent was also directed to file his affidavit of assets/
    income within four weeks.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also both the
    parties in-person and perused the material on record.
15. Firstly, with regard to the divorce decree, as noted above, the
    respondent has submitted that he has already re-married in the year
    2019 and the mediation proceedings as well as the submissions before
    us were only aimed at reaching a consensus on one-time settlement
    amount. Even in the signing off paragraph of the impugned order,
    the High Court had also observed that even on the said day, the
    wife was ready for a divorce but she was claiming a huge amount.
    Hence, it is evident that the subsisting dispute between the parties
    remains only concerning the maintenance amount and both the
    parties have agreed to the grant of divorce, therefore, we do not
    find it fitting to unnecessarily delve into the veracity of allegations of
    cruelty levelled by the respondent against the appellant. Considering
    the fact that the husband has already remarried, the present parties
    stayed together for only about two months after the marriage, have no
    intention to continue their marital relationship, the marriage between
    the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has evidently broken
    down irretrievably as such we are not inclined to interfere with the
    decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and confirmed by
    the High Court.
16. Now moving ahead to the contention with regard to the maintenance
    amount in favour of the appellant-wife, both the parties have agreed
    that a one-time settlement amount maybe awarded to the appellant
    but failed to reach a consensus on the said amount due to a non-


3   Cr.P.C.
1404                                                             [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


     agreement on the financial position of the respondent. On the question
     of permanent alimony and relevant factors for consideration, this
     Court has laid out the factors in detail in Rajnesh v. Neha4 which
     have been reiterated time and again in various judgments and were
     also detailed in the recent case of Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod
     Patel5 in the following terms:
            “25. A two-judge bench of this Court in Rajnesh v. Neha
            (supra), elaborated upon the broad criteria and the
            factors to be considered 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.


4   (2021) 2 SCC 324
5   2024 SCC OnLine SC 17824
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            1405

                           Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep


           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. 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
1406                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          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 [(2017) 15 SCC 801], Shailja v. Khobbanna [(2018)
          12 SCC 199], and Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha
          [(2014) 16 SCC 715], which reinforce these principles and
          provide a sound, reasonable and fair basis for determining
          maintenance in subsequent cases.”
17. Coming to the instant case, an affidavit dated 04.11.2024 was filed by
    the respondent-husband detailing his assets, income and expenditure.
    In the said affidavit, the respondent has stated that he is working
    as an Outsource Operator at one G.A. Digital Web World Pvt. Ltd.
    earning a monthly income of Rs. 16,612/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand
    Six Hundred Twelve only). He stated his personal monthly expenses
    to be around Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand only).
    He also stated that he has four dependent family members, i.e. his
    father, mother, brother and the second-wife and incurs an expense
    of around Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month on
    account of the dependent persons. Other than this, the respondent
    stated that he does not own any immovable property and does not
    have any other source of income, and had to obtain a personal loan
    from the Bank to clear the amount of arrears of maintenance as also
    to bear medical expenses of the dependents. The husband, in his
    affidavit, also stated that the appellant is running a unisex salon in
    Nagpur and earning an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
    only) per month from the said business but has failed to furnish any
    document to substantiate such claim.
18. On the other hand, the appellant-wife also filed an affidavit before
    us in terms of the order dated 01.10.2024 and stated that the
    respondent is running a gym in Nagpur since January, 2014 and is
    earning more than Rs. 80,000 (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per
    month from the said gym. It was also stated that the respondent is
    working with SPANCO on salaried basis as an electrical engineer.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                       1407

                           Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep


     Further, it was submitted that the respondent is also earning around
     Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) per month from the
     tenanted premises and his total monthly income is more than Rs.
     1,30,000/- (Rupees One lakh Thirty Thousand only). The appellant
     has annexed the photographs of the said gym, advertisements made
     by the respondent pertaining to the gym displaying the membership
     fees and photographs of the tenanted premises in order to buttress her
     claim in the affidavit. Lastly, with regard to the number of dependents
     on the respondent, it was submitted by the appellant that the father
     of the respondent has retired from Maharashtra State Electricity
     Board and receives pension. Further, the respondent’s brother has
     an independent income and is living separately.
19. A bare perusal of the affidavits submitted by both the parties makes
    it evident that the husband has not been forthright in disclosure
    of his income and assets and is clearly attempting to escape his
    liability to support the appellant post-divorce. This Court shall not
    acquiesce to such conduct of the respondent-husband. In pursuance
    of the affidavit filed by the appellant, it can be plainly inferred
    that the respondent has multiple sources of income including the
    rental income from tenanted premises. At the same time, it seems
    exaggerated to assess the appellant’s income from a salon at
    Nagpur to be an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)
    per month and the respondent’s submission in this regard does not
    sound credible. Further, it is an admitted fact that there is no issue
    out of the wedlock.
20. Therefore, considering the total facts and circumstances of the
    case, the financial status of the parties, their standards of living, the
    fact that the respondent has already remarried and also bears the
    financial responsibility of his new family, we find that awarding an
    amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as a one-time
    settlement in favour of the appellant-wife shall serve the purpose of
    equity and meet the ends of justice. As such, this amount shall fairly
    protect the interest of the appellant without imposing any punitive
    or unreasonable financial burden on the respondent, thus aiming to
    safeguard the interest of both the parties. This amount shall cover all
    the pending and future claims of the appellant against the husband.
    The respondent is, therefore, directed to pay the said amount as
    permanent alimony to the appellant within a period of three months.
1408                                                      [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


21. Accordingly, the instant appeal is partially allowed in terms of the
    above directions, the impugned order dated 25.04.2018 is upheld
    to the extent of finalising the grant of divorce decree to the parties.
22. No order as to costs.
23. Pending Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain