Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1463
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 35588 of 2025
@ D.17190 OF 2024)
JATINDER KUMAR …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
JEEWAN LATA …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E NT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard.
3 . The present appeal arises out of the impugned order
dated 28th February 2014 passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. M-246 of
2012, whereby the High Court dismissed the appellant-
husband’s appeal and affirmed the dismissal of his petition
seeking dissolution of marriage.
4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
are as follows:
Date: 2025.12.18
18:09:37 IST
Reason:
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. D. NO.17190 OF 2024 Page 1 of 6
4.1. The parties were married on 22nd June 2003 at
Morinda, District Ropar, Punjab. No child was born out of
the said wedlock.
4.2. Both parties are teachers by profession. Prior to the
marriage, the respondent-wife was working as a teacher in
Government Elementary School, Hansron, Tehsil
Nawanshahr, Punjab.
4.3. The appellant-husband contends that the marriage was
strained. In October 2004, the parties shifted to Ropar,
Punjab, when the appellant-husband was posted at
Government Senior Secondary School, Kariha. In February
2005, the appellant-husband met with an accident and
remained under medical treatment for about a week. It is
his case that during this period, the respondent-wife neither
attended to him nor took any care of him. He further alleges
that she attempted to procure his signatures on certain
documents under duress, which led him to institute a civil
suit seeking injunction against her and her family members.
Subsequently, the said suit was withdrawn pursuant to a
compromise between the parties.
4.4. In November 2005, the parties shifted back to
Nawanshahr, Punjab. Soon thereafter, the respondent-wife
left the matrimonial home and did not return.
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. D. NO.17190 OF 2024 Page 2 of 6
4.5. Thereafter, the appellant-husband filed a petition under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking
restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was
dismissed as withdrawn by the Trial Court vide order dated
13th October 2007.
4.6. Subsequently, on 14th December 2009, the appellant-
husband filed a petition being HMA No. 92 of 2009 under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce
on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
4.7. The Trial Court, vide order dated 14th August 2012,
dismissed the appellant-husband’s petition, holding that he
had failed to establish the allegations levelled against the
respondent-wife.
4.8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-husband preferred an
appeal being FAO No. M-246 of 2012 before the High Court.
4.9. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 28th
February 2014, upheld the order of the Trial Court and
dismissed the appeal.
4.10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant-
husband is before this Court.
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. D. NO.17190 OF 2024 Page 3 of 6
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
also interacted with the parties, who appeared in person
before this Court.
6. The appellant-husband submits that the marriage
between the parties has irretrievably broken down. It is
contended that the parties have been living separately for
nearly two decades and their differences are irreconcilable.
In these circumstances, it is urged that this Court may
dissolve the marriage in exercise of its powers under Article
142 of the Constitution of India.
7. The respondent-wife, on the other hand, submits that the
appellant-husband has not made any sincere effort to
reconcile with her. She has denied the allegations of cruelty
levelled against her and contends that the present case does
not warrant the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced on behalf of both parties. It is
undisputed that the parties have been living separately for
about twenty years. The strain in the marital relationship is
evident from the facts of the case and the averments made
by the appellant-husband. Despite opportunities, including
reference to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, no
amicable settlement could be arrived at. At this stage, there
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. D. NO.17190 OF 2024 Page 4 of 6
appears to be no possibility of reconciliation between the
parties. The continuance of the marital bond, in such
circumstances, would serve no meaningful purpose and
would only prolong the agony of both parties. We are
therefore of the considered view that this is a fit case where
the marriage has irretrievably broken down, warranting
exercise of this Court’s powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
9. Having decided to dissolve the marriage, the question of
permanent alimony requires consideration. Both parties are
teachers by profession and are employed in government
schools in the State of Punjab. During interaction with the
parties present before this Court, the appellant-husband
expressed his willingness to pay a sum of ₹ 15,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) as permanent alimony. Keeping
in view the respective positions of the parties, their long
separation, and other attendant circumstances, we are of
the view that a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs
only) would be a just and reasonable amount towards
permanent alimony, payable as a one-time settlement.
10. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the marriage
between the parties is dissolved, subject to the condition
that the appellant-husband shall pay a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the respondent-wife as full
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. D. NO.17190 OF 2024 Page 5 of 6
and final settlement of all her claims, including permanent
alimony. The said amount shall be paid within a period of
two months from today. The decree of divorce shall be drawn
up upon the Registry being furnished with proof of such
payment.
11. The respondent-wife shall furnish the necessary bank
details to facilitate the payment.
12. In view of the above directions, any civil or criminal
proceedings, if still pending between the parties, shall stand
closed.
13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order
dated 28th February 2014 passed by the High Court of
th
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and the order dated 14
August, 2012 passed by the Additional District Judge,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar are set aside. The decree of
divorce is granted under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India in the terms mentioned above.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………………..J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 18, 2025
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. D. NO.17190 OF 2024 Page 6 of 6
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 35588 of 2025
@ D.17190 OF 2024)
JATINDER KUMAR …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
JEEWAN LATA …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E NT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard.
3 . The present appeal arises out of the impugned order
dated 28th February 2014 passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. M-246 of
2012, whereby the High Court dismissed the appellant-
husband’s appeal and affirmed the dismissal of his petition
seeking dissolution of marriage.
4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
are as follows:
Date: 2025.12.18
18:09:37 IST
Reason:
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. D. NO.17190 OF 2024 Page 1 of 6
4.1. The parties were married on 22nd June 2003 at
Morinda, District Ropar, Punjab. No child was born out of
the said wedlock.
4.2. Both parties are teachers by profession. Prior to the
marriage, the respondent-wife was working as a teacher in
Government Elementary School, Hansron, Tehsil
Nawanshahr, Punjab.
4.3. The appellant-husband contends that the marriage was
strained. In October 2004, the parties shifted to Ropar,
Punjab, when the appellant-husband was posted at
Government Senior Secondary School, Kariha. In February
2005, the appellant-husband met with an accident and
remained under medical treatment for about a week. It is
his case that during this period, the respondent-wife neither
attended to him nor took any care of him. He further alleges
that she attempted to procure his signatures on certain
documents under duress, which led him to institute a civil
suit seeking injunction against her and her family members.
Subsequently, the said suit was withdrawn pursuant to a
compromise between the parties.
4.4. In November 2005, the parties shifted back to
Nawanshahr, Punjab. Soon thereafter, the respondent-wife
left the matrimonial home and did not return.
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. D. NO.17190 OF 2024 Page 2 of 6
4.5. Thereafter, the appellant-husband filed a petition under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking
restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was
dismissed as withdrawn by the Trial Court vide order dated
13th October 2007.
4.6. Subsequently, on 14th December 2009, the appellant-
husband filed a petition being HMA No. 92 of 2009 under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce
on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
4.7. The Trial Court, vide order dated 14th August 2012,
dismissed the appellant-husband’s petition, holding that he
had failed to establish the allegations levelled against the
respondent-wife.
4.8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-husband preferred an
appeal being FAO No. M-246 of 2012 before the High Court.
4.9. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 28th
February 2014, upheld the order of the Trial Court and
dismissed the appeal.
4.10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant-
husband is before this Court.
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. D. NO.17190 OF 2024 Page 3 of 6
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
also interacted with the parties, who appeared in person
before this Court.
6. The appellant-husband submits that the marriage
between the parties has irretrievably broken down. It is
contended that the parties have been living separately for
nearly two decades and their differences are irreconcilable.
In these circumstances, it is urged that this Court may
dissolve the marriage in exercise of its powers under Article
142 of the Constitution of India.
7. The respondent-wife, on the other hand, submits that the
appellant-husband has not made any sincere effort to
reconcile with her. She has denied the allegations of cruelty
levelled against her and contends that the present case does
not warrant the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced on behalf of both parties. It is
undisputed that the parties have been living separately for
about twenty years. The strain in the marital relationship is
evident from the facts of the case and the averments made
by the appellant-husband. Despite opportunities, including
reference to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, no
amicable settlement could be arrived at. At this stage, there
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. D. NO.17190 OF 2024 Page 4 of 6
appears to be no possibility of reconciliation between the
parties. The continuance of the marital bond, in such
circumstances, would serve no meaningful purpose and
would only prolong the agony of both parties. We are
therefore of the considered view that this is a fit case where
the marriage has irretrievably broken down, warranting
exercise of this Court’s powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
9. Having decided to dissolve the marriage, the question of
permanent alimony requires consideration. Both parties are
teachers by profession and are employed in government
schools in the State of Punjab. During interaction with the
parties present before this Court, the appellant-husband
expressed his willingness to pay a sum of ₹ 15,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) as permanent alimony. Keeping
in view the respective positions of the parties, their long
separation, and other attendant circumstances, we are of
the view that a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs
only) would be a just and reasonable amount towards
permanent alimony, payable as a one-time settlement.
10. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the marriage
between the parties is dissolved, subject to the condition
that the appellant-husband shall pay a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the respondent-wife as full
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. D. NO.17190 OF 2024 Page 5 of 6
and final settlement of all her claims, including permanent
alimony. The said amount shall be paid within a period of
two months from today. The decree of divorce shall be drawn
up upon the Registry being furnished with proof of such
payment.
11. The respondent-wife shall furnish the necessary bank
details to facilitate the payment.
12. In view of the above directions, any civil or criminal
proceedings, if still pending between the parties, shall stand
closed.
13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order
dated 28th February 2014 passed by the High Court of
th
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and the order dated 14
August, 2012 passed by the Additional District Judge,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar are set aside. The decree of
divorce is granted under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India in the terms mentioned above.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………………..J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 18, 2025
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. D. NO.17190 OF 2024 Page 6 of 6