A. RANJITHKUMAR versus E. KAVITHA

Citation: [2025] 9 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 14-08-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 151 : 2025 INSC 978
A. Ranjithkumar 
v. 
E. Kavitha
(Civil Appeal No. 10654 of 2025)
14 August 2025
[Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment passed 
by the High Court, setting aside the decree of divorce granted by 
the family court.
Headnotes†
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia), (ib) – Dissolution of 
marriage – Ground of cruelty – Husband instituted divorce 
petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of 
cruelty and adultery – Family Court granted   decree of divorce 
on the ground of cruelty – High Court set aside the decree of 
divorce – Challenge to:
Held: No possibility of reconciliation between the parties – They 
have been living separately for nearly 15 years – No vestige of 
matrimonial relationship between them, and neither party has 
shown any inclination to resolve their differences – Furthermore, 
the husband got remarried eight years back – No purpose in 
continuing the legal relationship between the parties – Marriage 
has irretrievably broken down – Fit case for granting divorce by 
invoking the powers u/Art.142 – Furthermore, it is just and proper 
to award one-time lump sum as permanent alimony to the wife 
and their son – Thus, the marriage between the parties stands 
dissolved subject to the condition that the husband to pay a sum 
of Rupees One Crore Twenty-Five Lakhs only to the wife as 
permanent alimony – Impugned order set aside – Constitution of 
India – Art.142. [Paras 6-9]
List of Acts
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Constitution of India.
* Author
152
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Dissolution of marriage; Article 142 of the Constitution; Irretrievably 
broken down; Permanent alimony; No possibility of reconciliation; 
Cruelty; Divorce.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10654 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2018 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 2678 of 2017
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M.P. Parthiban, Ms. Priyaranjani 
Nagamuthu, Ankur Prakash, Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, 
Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Anup Kumar, Mrs. Shruti Singh, Ms. Pragya Choudhary, Mr. Awanish 
Gupta, Shivam Kumar, Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Vishnu Prabhakar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
This appeal arises from the judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by 
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 
No. 2678 of 2017, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed 
by the respondent-wife and set aside the decree of divorce granted 
by the Family Court on 17.10.2016.
3.	
The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows:
3.1.	 The marriage between the appellant-husband and the 
respondent-wife was solemnized on 15.02.2009. Shortly 
thereafter, the parties relocated to the United States of America, 
where the appellant-husband was employed.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 
153
A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha
3.2.	 A son was born to the parties on 07.04.2010.
3.3.	 On 26.09.2012, the appellant-husband instituted a divorce 
petition bearing H.M.O.P. No. 197 of 2012 (later renumbered as 
F.C.O.P. No. 245 of 2014) under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of 
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage 
on the grounds of cruelty and adultery.
3.4.	 The Family Court, by its order dated 17.10.2016, granted a 
decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The allegation of 
adultery was not found to be proved.
3.5.	 Aggrieved by the said decree, the respondent-wife filed Civil 
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2678 of 2017 before the High Court 
on 11.01.2017. Although notice was directed to be issued on 
14.02.2017, the same remained unserved upon the appellant-
husband.
3.6.	 On 05.03.2017, the appellant-husband contracted a second 
marriage.
3.7.	 The High Court, by the impugned order, set aside the decree 
of divorce. It observed that the principal instance of cruelty 
accepted by the Family Court was the rude utterances of the 
respondent-wife’s father. The High Court held that while such 
utterances may have agitated the appellant-husband, the 
respondent-wife could not be held liable for them.
3.8.	 The appellant-husband is now before this Court, challenging 
the decision of the High Court.
4.	
We have heard learned counsel appearing for both parties.
5.	
At the outset, notice w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.