Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 961
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.21710-21711 of 2024)
PARVIN KUMAR JAIN ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ANJU JAIN ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned order
dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Delhi High Court in
MAT. APP.(F.C.) 226/2018 & CM APPL. 36723/2018.
CM APPL. 4245/2021. CM APPL. 51379/2022, CM
APPL. 52044/2022 and MAT.APP. (F.C.) 120/2019.
Vide the impugned order, the High Court dismissed
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 226/2018 filed by the Husband
against the order of the Family Court, in an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2024.12.10
18:28:38 IST
Reason:
application for maintenance pendente lite under
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 1 of 29
1
section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 along
with all pending applications, with costs of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). By the same
common order, the MAT.APP. (F.C) 120/2019 filed by
the Wife is allowed to the extent that the interim
maintenance granted to the Wife under Section 24 of
the HMA is enhanced from Rs.1,15,000/-(Rupees one
lakh fifteen thousand only) to Rs.1,45,000/- (Rupees
one lakh forty five thousand only) per month from
the date of filing of enhancement application.
3. The parties were married as per Hindu rites and
ceremonies on 13.12.1998 and have one son born
from their wedlock on 28.05.2001. However, the
marital relationship soured and the parties began
living separately from January, 2004. Since the date
of separation, the son has been residing with the
respondent–wife. Subsequently, on 11.05.2004, the
appellant–husband filed a petition under Section
13(1)(ia) of the HMA, before the Family Court seeking
divorce on the ground of cruelty. During the
pendency of the divorce petition, the respondent, on
27.05.2004, filed an application under Section 24 of
1
HMA
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 2 of 29
the HMA seeking pendente lite maintenance for
herself and the son. This application was disposed of
by the Family Court vide order dated 20.09.2004,
directing the appellant to pay a cumulative sum of
₹
18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) per
month, comprising ₹ 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen
thousand only) to the respondent and ₹ 3,000/- to the
son.
4. Both parties challenged the Family Court’s order
through separate appeals before the High Court.
Consequently, vide order dated 21.11.2005, the High
Court enhanced the maintenance amount to
₹ 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month,
allocating ₹ 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only)
to the respondent and ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five
thousand only) to the son. Subsequently, the
respondent filed an application under Sections 24
and 26 of the HMA, seeking further enhancement of
interim maintenance. In her application, she claimed
an enhanced amount of ₹ 1,45,000/- (Rupees one
lakh forty five thousand only) per month, contending
that the appellant’s income had increased
significantly, exceeding ₹ 4,00,000/- (Rupees four
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 3 of 29
lakhs only) per month, inclusive of salary, perks,
allowances, and bonuses. She further argued that
the financial needs of both, her and the son, had
increased manifold since the prior determination of
maintenance.
5. During the pendency of the application, the
appellant, in July 2015, voluntarily increased the
interim maintenance to ₹ 65,000/- (Rupees sixty five
thousand only) per month. He agreed to pay
₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the
respondent, effective from the date of filing the
enhancement application on 28.02.2009, and
₹ 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the son,
effective from July 2015. However, the appellant
contended that following the dismissal of his divorce
petition on 14.07.2016 upon being withdrawn by
him, the Family Court had become functus officio ,
rendering it incapable of granting any further relief
under Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA. He also
submitted that the provisions of Section 26 of the
HMA do not permit granting of maintenance to an
adult male child.
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 4 of 29
6. The respondent’s application for enhanced interim
maintenance rested on her assertion of significant
changes in circumstances since the last maintenance
order, including the increased financial requirements
of herself and the son. On the other hand, the
appellant’s position focused on the legal implications
of the withdrawal of his divorce petition and the
applicability of Section 26 of the HMA concerning the
maintenance of an adult male child.
7. The Family Court, in its order dated 16.08.2018,
allowed the respondent’s application for
enhancement of maintenance and held that the relief
in an application filed under Section 24 of the HMA
can only be granted from the date of filing of the
application, i.e., 28.02.2009, until the date the main
divorce petition was dismissed as withdrawn, i.e.,
14.07.2016. Proceedings under Section 26 of the
HMA are independent of the main divorce
proceedings, and relief under this section can be
granted for a period beyond the dismissal of the main
divorce petition. The Court therein observed that the
appellant had adopted delaying tactics, which
prevented the timely resolution of the respondent’s
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 5 of 29
enhancement application. The appellant had been
evasive in disclosing his actual income and assets,
concealing his true financial status, including his
movable and immovable properties. Therefore, he
failed to discharge his moral and legal obligations to
provide reasonable and just maintenance to his wife
and son, commensurate with their social and
economic standing.
8. The Family Court held that the respondent and her
son are entitled to enhanced maintenance
considering the increased expenditures for a growing
child and the respondent’s requirements aligned with
her social status. Accordingly, the Family Court
directed the appellant to pay the following amounts:
i. ₹ 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifteen
thousand only) per month as pendente lite
maintenance to the wife and the son from
28.02.2009 to 14.07.2016, when the divorce
petition was withdrawn.
ii. ₹ 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only)
per month to the son from 15.07.2016, until
he attains the age of 26 years or becomes
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 6 of 29
financially independent, whichever is earlier.
This amount shall be subject to a 10%
increase every two years starting 28.05.2019.
iii. Litigation costs of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two
lakhs only).
9. Both the parties challenged the above order of the
Family Court vide two separate appeals before the
High Court. It is the judgment passed in these
appeals by the High Court, which is challenged before
us by the appellant.
10. The High Court considered whether the Family Court
loses its jurisdiction to decide pending applications
under Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA, upon
withdrawal of the main divorce petition. The
appellant argued that the Family Court becomes
functus officio upon such withdrawal, and therefore,
proceedings for interim maintenance and child-
related relief under Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA,
respectively, could not be adjudicated. This
contention was based on the assumption that the
statutory jurisdiction under Sections 24 and 26 of the
HMA is ancillary to the divorce proceedings and
cannot survive withdrawal of the main case. The High
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 7 of 29
Court rejected this argument, holding that both
provisions are independent in nature and continue to
operate despite the withdrawal of the divorce petition.
The High Court observed that the legislature's intent
behind Section 24 of the HMA is to ensure that a
financially dependent spouse is not left without
resources during the pendency of matrimonial
disputes, and this obligation cannot be unilaterally
nullified by withdrawal of the petition. It emphasized
that allowing withdrawal of the main petition to
terminate Section 24 of the HMA proceedings would
render the dependent spouse financially vulnerable
and create a procedural loophole for evasion of legal
obligations. The High Court concluded that interim
maintenance proceedings have an independent
existence and are not strictly ancillary to the main
proceedings. It held that the Family Court's
jurisdiction to adjudicate interim maintenance under
Section 24 of the HMA extends until the date of
withdrawal of the main petition, thereby ensuring
that the dependent spouse’s financial security is not
abruptly disrupted by procedural tactics.
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 8 of 29
11. With respect to Section 26 of the HMA, which
pertains to custody, maintenance, and education of
minor children, the High Court provided a detailed
analysis of the statutory language and intention. It
held that the provision explicitly permits Courts to
make orders “from time to time,” granting or
modifying reliefs related to children, irrespective of
the pendency or withdrawal of the main matrimonial
proceedings. The High Court reasoned that matters
concerning the welfare of children are not merely
incidental to the matrimonial dispute but are of
paramount and enduring importance. Recognizing
that the interests of the children are paramount, the
High Court clarified that the Family Court retains
jurisdiction under Section 26 of the HMA even after
withdrawal of the main petition, ensuring that
children’s needs are addressed in an ongoing and
dynamic manner.
12. The High Court also dismissed the appellant's appeal
placing reliance on the this Court’s decision in Ajay
2
Mohan and Ors. v. H.N, Rai and Ors. , observing
that the judgment was delivered in a different context
2
(2008) 2 SCC 507
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 9 of 29
and was not applicable to matrimonial proceedings
under the HMA. It noted that this Court in Ajay
Mohan (Supra), did not address the specific
statutory framework or the unique considerations
governing Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA.
Reaffirming its position, the High Court underscored
that the provisions under Sections 24 and 26 of the
HMA serve distinct and independent purposes—one
ensuring financial support for the dependent spouse
and the other protecting the welfare of minor
children. It concluded that the Family Court’s
jurisdiction to adjudicate these matters persists
independent of the status of the primary matrimonial
dispute, thereby reinforcing the legislative objective
of ensuring fairness and equity in matrimonial
proceedings.
13. The High Court, while deciding the correctness of
interim maintenance provided by the Family Court,
heavily relied on the judgment of this Court in
3
Rajnesh v. Neha and Another . This Court, in this
judgment laid down the principles to ensure
equitable determination of financial support for the
3
(2021) 2 SCC 32
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 10 of 29
wife and dependent child. It reiterated that
maintenance should be determined after considering
the status and lifestyle of the parties, reasonable
needs of the wife and children, the wife’s educational
qualifications, professional skills, and earning
capacity, as well as the appellant’s financial standing
and obligations. It must also address the rising cost
of living and inflation to ensure a standard of living
that is proportionate to the appellant’s financial
capacity and consistent with the standard of living
the wife and children were accustomed to prior to
separation. This Court highlighted that a husband
cannot evade his duty of disclosure by concealing
assets, as financial transparency is critical to the fair
adjudication of maintenance claims.
14. In this case, the High Court observed that the
appellant’s income, primarily from employment and
investments, demonstrated his ability to provide for
the wife and child’s maintenance adequately. The
evidence revealed that the appellant earned over
₹ 4,00,000 (Rupees four lakhs only) per month
between 2007 and 2016. Although he claimed higher
living expenses due to his residence in Mauritius, the
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 11 of 29
High Court found his arguments to be
unsubstantiated, as his financial resources allowed
him to meet maintenance obligations without undue
hardship. The High Court further noted several
instances of the appellant’s deliberate attempts to
mislead the judicial process. He withheld critical
financial documents and selectively disclosed
information to conceal the full extent of his wealth.
The inquiry into the statutory forms of the appellant
revealed that he had investments in mutual funds
valued at ₹ 5.10 crores as early as 2009-2010,
significant sums deposited in bank accounts, and
other financial transactions that were not initially
disclosed.
15. The High Court also identified false representations
by the appellant regarding his property and income.
He denied ownership of a property located at F-146,
Richmond Park, Gurgaon, despite evidence of its
ownership and rental income accruing to him.
Additionally, the appellant misrepresented his
association with Prasham Consultants LLP, wherein
he continued to receive financial benefits until his
father replaced him in 2016. These findings
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 12 of 29
demonstrated a pattern of deliberate suppression of
material facts and assets by the appellant, aimed at
minimizing his maintenance liability. Such conduct
warranted judicial intervention to ensure justice and
provide adequate financial support to the wife and
child, reflecting principles of fairness, transparency,
and equity. Consequently, the High Court directed
the appellant to pay interim maintenance that
adequately addressed the needs of the wife and child,
proportionate to his financial capacity and consistent
with the obligations of a responsible spouse and
parent.
16. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the
appellant’s appeal challenging the order of interim
maintenance granted by the Family Court, and, while
allowing the respondent’s appeal, granted the
following relief:
i. MAT.APP. (F.C) 120/2019 filed by the wife is
allowed to the extent that the interim
maintenance granted to the wife under
Section 24 of the HMA is enhanced from Rs.
1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifteen
thousand only) to Rs. 1,45,000/- (Rupees on
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 13 of 29
lakh forty five thousand only) per month from
the date of filing of enhancement application
i.e. 28.02.2009 till the date of withdrawal of
divorce petition by the appellant i.e.
14.07.2016.
ii. All amounts paid by the appellant to the wife
and the son till date shall be duly adjusted.
iii. The appellant shall also be liable to pay
interest at the rate of 12% per annum
towards the shortfall in the maintenance
amount for the concerned period. The
interest shall be calculated on the amount of
deficit from the time it became due in a
particular month and till the time it is paid.
iv. Based on the aforesaid, the arrears of
maintenance to both the wife and the son,
along with the interest, shall be paid within a
period of eight (8) weeks from today.
17. The appellant is before us challenging the above
judgment of the High Court on the grounds that the
respondent has played a fraud on the Courts by
concealing material/relevant documents and by filing
false affidavits in support of her enhancement
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 14 of 29
application, and that the son could not be granted
maintenance till the age of twenty-six years as per the
law. The interest @ 12% per annum in punitive in
nature even though he had never defaulted in
payment of interim maintenance.
18. We heard the parties in camera to discuss the
possibility of an amicable solution but during the
proceedings both the parties submitted that they are
willing to have the marriage annulled by mutual
consent as there remains no possibility of a reunion
between them.
19. During the interaction before this Court, we found
both the parties to be fair and reasonable in their
approach, demeanor and conduct. They have shown
an honest intention to amicably settle their disputes
instead of maligning each other and unnecessarily
delaying the proceedings.
20. Learned senior counsels for the respective parties
have made their submissions at length. The parties
have also filed their affidavits of assets as directed by
this Court.
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 15 of 29
21. Before we proceed further, it is relevant to note that
the parties stayed together only for around five years
of the marriage, and even though they have a son out
of the wedlock, they have been staying separately for
almost over two decades now. They have made
multiple serious allegations against each other and
have been conducting litigations. They have no
intention of reconciling, their marriage exists only for
namesake, and there has been no cohabitation
between the parties since 2004. Though the petition
for dissolution of marriage has been withdrawn by
the appellant, the interim maintenance proceedings
have been going on between the parties since 2004.
22. The admitted long-standing separation, nature of
differences, prolonged litigations pending
adjudication, and the unwillingness of the parties to
reconcile, are evidence enough to show that the
marriage between the parties has completely broken
down irretrievably.
23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in its judgment in
4
the case of Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan ,
4
(2022) 15 SCC 754
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 16 of 29
laid down that it has the discretionary power to
dissolve a marriage which in its opinion and on the
evidence has broken down irretrievably. The Court is
required to exercise this discretion cautiously while
analyzing the facts and evidence of each case. In
order to arrive at the decision regarding whether the
marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Court
needs to factually examine and firmly establish the
same, after careful consideration.
24. In Shilpa Sailesh (Supra) , this Court further laid
down the factors to be considered for such
examination, and the same were reiterated in the
5
case of Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel .
This Court in both these judgments opined that the
factors to be examined include the period of
cohabitation between the parties, the period of
separation, the attempts made for reconciliation,
nature and gravity of allegations made between the
parties, and such other similar factors.
25. This Court in plethora of judgments, such as Shilpa
Sailesh (Supra) and Kiran Jyot Maini (Supra),
5
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1724
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 17 of 29
6
Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri and Hitesh
7
Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar , has laid down the
clear position that a marriage can be dissolved by this
Court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown when
the relationship is so strained that the marriage has
succumbed to the long standing differences between
the parties and it has become impossible to save such
a relationship. When the Court is convinced that
there is no scope for the marriage to survive and no
useful purpose, emotional or practical, would be
served by continuing the soured relationship, and it
finds that the marriage is completely dead, then it
can exercise its inherent power under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage.
26. In the present case, even though the parties
cohabited for about five to six years after marriage,
but they have been living separately for more than
two decades now. From the material on record, it also
appears that even during the period of cohabitation
the relationship between the parties was strained.
The parties have made multiple serious allegations
6
(1997) 4 SCC 226
7
(2011) 5 SCC 234
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 18 of 29
against each other. The appellant has contended that
the respondent was short-tempered, hostile and
behaved inappropriately with him and his parents,
which led him into depression. The respondent has
alleged that the appellant’s family was indifferent
towards her from the beginning, they had created an
uncomfortable environment for her, and the
appellant showed no concern or care towards her.
She further alleged that in the five years of
cohabitation, the appellant was hostile towards her,
she was treated like a domestic help, was never taken
care of, and she was never treated as a wife by him.
She finally left her matrimonial house fearing threat
to her life, after hearing conversations between the
appellant and his mother.
27. It is evident that the relationship between the parties
appears to be strained from the beginning and only
further soured over the years. Reconciliation
proceedings during the pendency of the divorce
petition also failed. The parties have been litigating
maintenance proceedings for a prolonged period, and
there appears to be no cogent reason to only deal with
the issue of interim maintenance after twenty years
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 19 of 29
of strained relationship and separation. These facts
are admitted by the parties before us, and they have
also mutually agreed for the dissolution of their
marriage. Therefore, we believe that the marriage
between the parties should be dissolved by this Court
while exercising the discretionary power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
28. Thus, considering the facts of this case, all the
material on record, submissions of the parties and
analyzing the same in light of the factors stated
above, the marriage between the appellant and the
respondent is ordered to be dissolved.
29. The main issue between the parties all these years,
since separation, is the quantum of maintenance to
be paid by the appellant to the respondent. The issue
of maintenance pendente lite is now infructuous with
the dissolution of marriage, but the financial interest
of the wife still needs to be protected through grant
of permanent alimony. The learned senior counsels
for the parties have made submissions at length
regarding the financial condition of both the parties.
In order to establish the correct financial position of
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 20 of 29
both the parties, they have filed their respective
affidavits of income and assets as ordered by this
Court.
30. Before going into the details of the financial position
of the parties, it is imperative that we highlight the
position of law with regard to determination of
permanent alimony. This Court, in a catena of
judgments, has laid down the factors that needs to
be considered in order to arrive at a just, fair and
reasonable amount of permanent alimony.
31. There cannot be strict guidelines or a fixed formula
for fixing the amount of permanent maintenance. The
quantum of maintenance is subjective to each case
and is dependent on various circumstances and
factors. The Court needs to look into factors such as
income of both the parties; conduct during the
subsistence of marriage; their individual social and
financial status; personal expenses of each of the
parties; their individual capacities and duties to
maintain their dependents; the quality of life enjoyed
by the wife during the subsistence of the marriage;
and such other similar factors. This position was laid
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 21 of 29
down by this Court in Vinny Paramvir Parmar v.
8
Paramvir Parmar , and Vishwanath Agrawal v.
9
Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal .
32. This Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra) ,
provided a comprehensive criterion and a list of
factors to be looked into while deciding the question
of permanent alimony. This judgment lays down an
elaborate and comprehensive framework necessary
for deciding the amount of maintenance in all
matrimonial proceedings, with specific emphasis on
permanent alimony. The same has been reiterated by
this Court in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod
Patel (Supra). The primary objective of granting
permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent
spouse is not left without any support and means
after the dissolution of the marriage. It aims at
protecting the interests of the dependent spouse and
does not provide for penalizing the other spouse in
the process. The Court in these two judgments laid
down the following factors to be looked into:
i. Status of the parties, social and financial.
8
(2011) 13 SCC 112
9
(2012) 7 SCC 288
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 22 of 29
ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and the
dependent children.
iii. Parties’ individual qualifications and
employment statuses.
iv. Independent income or assets owned by the
applicant.
v. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the
matrimonial home.
vi. Any employment sacrifices made for the
family responsibilities.
vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working
wife.
viii. Financial capacity of the husband, his
income, maintenance obligations, and
liabilities.
These are only guidelines and not a straitjacket
rubric. These among such other similar factors
become relevant.
33. This Court in Kiran Jyot Maini (Supra), while
discussing the husband’s obligation to maintain the
wife and the importance of his financial capacity in
deciding the quantum, observed that:
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 23 of 29
“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.”
34. In the present case, it is a matter of record and an
admitted fact that the respondent is unemployed
while the appellant is a well accomplished banker
who has worked in multiple senior roles at various
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 24 of 29
banks over the years. We have perused the records of
finances produced before us. Even though the
records of the DEMAT accounts and the employment
letters produced by the appellant are almost ten
years ago or earlier, his financial position can be
suitably ascertained from them.
35. It is admitted on record that the respondent is a home
maker and has not been working in all these years,
the son lives with her, who has now completed his B.
Tech. course, and they reside in a house owned by
the respondent’s mother. The appellant has paid for
the son’s education as well as paid the interim
maintenance as ordered by the Family Court. The son
is now major and has also completed his graduation.
36. The appellant is currently working as the Chief
Executive Officer of Vision Bank in Dubai and his
estimated salary is about AED 50,000 per month
which means that he is earning around Rs. 10 to 12
Lakhs per month. Though he has filed details of his
DEMAT accounts from 2010, it is revealed that he
had investments of around Rs.5 crores at that time.
Further, he has three properties worth approximately
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 25 of 29
Rs.2 crores, Rs.5 crores and Rs.10 crores,
respectively.
37. During the period of cohabitation, the parties were
initially residing in Mumbai when the appellant was
working as a Foreign Exchange Executive with Global
Trust Bank and subsequently in Chennai when the
appellant changed his job. The appellant has worked
at multiple positions in prestigious Banks and stayed
in metropolitan cities with the respondent during the
subsistence of the marriage.
38. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 23.09.2024,
the appellant has also paid Rs. 72 Lakhs as arrears
of maintenance in addition to the maintenance
already paid by him.
39. It is not disputed that the appellant has the legal
obligation as well as the financial capacity to
maintain the respondent after dissolution of the
marriage. As held by us in Kiran Jyot Maine
(Supra), it is also necessary to ensure that the
amount of permanent alimony should not penalize
the husband but should be made with the aim of
ensuring a decent standard of living for the wife.
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 26 of 29
40. Considering the material on record, the totality of the
circumstances and the facts of this case, a one-time
settlement amount with provision for the respondent
as well as the son, would be a fair arrangement. For
the respondent, considering the standard of living
enjoyed by her during subsistence of the marriage,
the prolonged period of separation, and the
appellant’s financial capacity, a one-time settlement
amount of Rs. 5 crores (Rupees five crores only),
appears to be just, fair and reasonable amount for
the respondent to be paid by the appellant towards
settlement of all pending claims also.
41. It is also equitable and only obligatory for a father to
provide for his children, especially when they have
the means and the capacity to do the same. Even
though the son is now major and has just finished
his engineering degree, the High Court has rightly
observed that it is only after completion of a college/
university degree and in some cases, completing a
post-graduation/ professional degree, would the
child be able to secure employment. In fact, it can
safely be concluded that, in today's competitive
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 27 of 29
world, gainful employment may be feasible only after
the child has pursued education beyond 18 years of
age. Mere completion of his engineering degree does
not guarantee a gainful employment, in these
competitive times. The appellant herein has sufficient
means to support his child, and thus provision
should also be made for his maintenance and
financial security as well. An amount of Rs. 1 crore
(Rupees one crore only) towards the maintenance and
care of the son appears to be fair, which he can utilize
for his higher education and as security till he
becomes financially independent.
42. Therefore, we fix the abovementioned amount as
one-time settlement amount to be paid by the
appellant to the respondent and his son within a
period of four months from the date of this judgment.
43. Consequently, the appeals are disposed of with the
above observations and directions to the parties.
Accordingly, decree of divorce be granted in exercise
of this Court’s power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India. Further, the appellant shall
pay the amount provided above towards permanent
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 28 of 29
alimony to the respondent and his son within the
time stipulated above. The Registry to draw a decree
accordingly.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 10, 2024
SLP(Civil)Nos.21710-21711/2024 Page 29 of 29