Whether permanent alimony should be granted, and if so, on what basis?

Case Citation

Court Name: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda
Case No.: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 278 of 2023
Date of Judgment: December 19, 2024
Judges: Justice Nagarathna

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Rinku Baheti, filed a transfer petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the transfer of a divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband, Sandesh Sharda, from the Family Court in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, to the Family Court in Pune, Maharashtra. The parties married on July 31, 2021, as per Hindu rites, but their marriage was marked by discord. The respondent-husband, a U.S. citizen, alleged cruelty by the petitioner and sought divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Both parties filed multiple legal cases, including criminal complaints and applications under various legal provisions. The respondent filed three divorce petitions within a short time, and the petitioner opposed the divorce while demanding alimony.

Contentions of the Appellant

1. Transfer of Proceedings: The petitioner requested the transfer of the divorce case to Pune, citing her inability to travel to Bhopal.
2. Opposition to Divorce: The petitioner argued that the marriage had not irretrievably broken down and sought to maintain the relationship despite filing criminal cases against the respondent.
3. Demand for Alimony: The petitioner demanded permanent alimony equivalent to what the respondent’s ex-wife received, citing the respondent’s wealth and her own limited resources.

Contentions of the Respondent

1. Irretrievable Breakdown: The respondent asserted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, with no possibility of reconciliation.
2. Cruelty Allegations: The respondent accused the petitioner of making unfounded allegations, filing false criminal complaints, and engaging in harassment.
3. Opposition to Alimony Demand: The respondent argued that the petitioner’s demand for exorbitant alimony was unreasonable, given the short duration of the marriage and lack of contribution to his assets.

Issues on Judgment

1. Whether the transfer of the divorce case from Bhopal to Pune was justified?
2. Whether the Supreme Court could dissolve the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown?
3. Whether the petitioner’s criminal complaints and demands for alimony constituted cruelty?
4. Whether permanent alimony should be granted, and if so, on what basis?

Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court

1. Marriage Duration: The Court noted that the marriage lasted for only a short period and was marked by discord and litigation.
2. Criminal Complaints: The petitioner’s criminal complaints and actions, including the respondent’s arrest, created an incurable rift between the parties.
3. Irretrievable Breakdown: The Court concluded that the marriage was emotionally dead and beyond repair, justifying a decree of divorce under Article 142.
4. Alimony: Considering the petitioner’s financial needs and the respondent’s wealth, the Court directed a lump sum alimony of ₹10 crore or a monthly payment of ₹2 lakh as reasonable.

Principles Laid Down by the Court

1. Use of Article 142: The Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage under Article 142 in cases of irretrievable breakdown, even if one party opposes.
2. Assessment of Breakdown: Factors such as duration of separation, repeated litigation, and lack of reconciliation efforts are crucial in determining irretrievable breakdown.
3. Fair Alimony: Alimony must be commensurate with the financial status of the parties and the circumstances of the marriage.

Final Order

The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing irretrievable breakdown. The Court awarded the petitioner permanent alimony of ₹10 crore or ₹2 lakh per month, as per the petitioner’s choice. The transfer petition was rendered infructuous as the divorce decree resolved the marital dispute.

Importance of this Judgment to Society

This judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s discretionary powers under Article 142 to provide relief in cases of marital discord that cannot be resolved through conventional legal channels. By addressing the issues of irretrievable breakdown and fair alimony, the Court emphasized the need for equitable resolutions in matrimonial disputes. It underscores the balance between protecting individual rights and preventing misuse of legal provisions in marital conflicts, thereby contributing to a more compassionate and pragmatic approach to family law.