LexSAU. JIYA versus KULDEEP
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.