Supreme Court Upholds Maintenance for Wife and Adult Son, Dissolves Marriage Under Irretrievable Breakdown Doctrine, Orders ₹6 Crores as One-Time Settlement to Secure Financial Stability

1. Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court:

• Dissolved the Marriage: Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court dissolved the marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
• Enhanced Maintenance: Increased the maintenance for the respondent (wife) and the son.
• Directed One-Time Settlement: Ordered the appellant (husband) to pay ₹5 crores to the wife as permanent alimony and ₹1 crore for the son’s financial security and education.

2. Facts

1. Marriage and Separation: The parties were married in 1998 but separated in 2004 after five years of cohabitation. The respondent has custody of their son since separation.
2. Initial Legal Actions: The appellant filed for divorce in 2004, citing cruelty. The respondent filed for pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
3. Maintenance Orders:
   • The Family Court initially granted ₹18,000 per month as maintenance, which was enhanced to ₹1,15,000.
   • The High Court increased this amount further to ₹1,45,000 per month.
4. Appellant’s Contentions: The appellant argued that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction after the withdrawal of the divorce petition and objected to the maintenance granted for an adult son.
5. Respondent’s Position: She argued for higher maintenance due to increased financial needs and the appellant’s significant financial capacity.

3. Issues

1. Jurisdiction of the Family Court: Does the Family Court retain jurisdiction to decide pending maintenance applications after the withdrawal of the divorce petition?
2. Maintenance for an Adult Son: Is granting maintenance to an adult male child valid under the HMA?
3. Quantum of Permanent Alimony: What is the appropriate amount of alimony and financial support considering the facts of the case?

4. Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Functus Officio Doctrine: Claimed that the Family Court became functus officio (lost jurisdiction) after the withdrawal of the divorce petition.
2. Maintenance for the Son: Contended that maintenance could not be granted for an adult male child under Section 26 of the HMA.
3. Financial Hardship: Asserted that the maintenance orders were excessive and punitive, despite fulfilling prior maintenance obligations.

5. Respondent’s Arguments

1. Increased Financial Needs: Highlighted that the son’s education and her own living expenses had increased significantly over the years.
2. Appellant’s Financial Transparency: Accused the appellant of hiding his true financial status and delaying the proceedings.
3. Rightful Claim: Emphasized the appellant’s moral and legal obligation to provide adequate financial support for her and the son.

6. Analysis of the Law

1. Section 24 of the HMA:
   • The Court clarified that pendente lite maintenance aims to ensure financial security for a dependent spouse during matrimonial disputes.
   • Maintenance applications under Section 24 are independent and continue even if the main petition is withdrawn.
2. Section 26 of the HMA:
   • The provision allows orders regarding child maintenance irrespective of the status of the primary matrimonial proceedings.
   • Welfare of the child is paramount and cannot be restricted based on procedural formalities.
3. Article 142 of the Constitution:
   • The Court reiterated its discretionary power to dissolve marriages under irretrievable breakdown doctrine when reconciliation is impossible and litigation has prolonged.

7. Precedent Analysis

1. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan: Recognized irretrievable breakdown as a valid ground for divorce and emphasized the need for factual analysis before granting divorce under Article 142.
2. Rajnesh v. Neha: Established guidelines for determining maintenance, including factors like financial transparency, the dependent spouse’s needs, and the lifestyle during the marriage.
3. Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar: Stressed that maintenance should ensure the dependent spouse’s dignity without penalizing the paying spouse.

8. Court’s Reasoning

1. Jurisdiction of Family Court:
   • Maintenance proceedings under Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA are not strictly ancillary to divorce proceedings.
   • The withdrawal of the divorce petition does not negate the obligation to provide financial support.
2. Financial Transparency:
   • The appellant’s substantial income, assets, and investments proved his ability to pay enhanced maintenance.
   • Evidence revealed attempts to conceal financial details, justifying judicial intervention.
3. Irretrievable Breakdown:
   • The parties were separated for two decades, and reconciliation attempts had failed.
   • Mutual agreement to divorce further supported the Court’s conclusion of irretrievable breakdown.
4. Child Welfare:
   • The son’s financial dependence justified continued maintenance until he achieves financial independence.

9. Conclusion

1. Dissolution of Marriage: The Court dissolved the marriage, exercising its powers under Article 142.
2. Permanent Alimony: Directed the appellant to pay ₹5 crores to the respondent.
3. Child Maintenance: Ordered ₹1 crore for the son’s education and financial security.
4. Timelines: The amounts are to be paid within four months.

10. Implications

1. Strengthened Doctrine of Irretrievable Breakdown:
   • Confirms the Court’s willingness to dissolve marriages that have irretrievably broken down, even if not explicitly recognized under statutory law.
2. Independent Maintenance Jurisdiction:
   • Affirms that maintenance claims are independent and do not cease with the withdrawal of the main petition.
3. Emphasis on Financial Transparency:
   • Highlights the obligation of spouses to disclose true financial status to ensure equitable maintenance orders.

Also Read – Supreme Court Refers Inconsistent Interpretation of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act to Larger Bench: “Does Property Possessed by a Hindu Female Become Absolute Under Section 14(1) or Remain Restricted Under Section 14(2)?”