Case Name: Sau. Jiya vs. Kuldeep
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. (SLP (C) No. 24893 of 2018)
Date: January 31, 2025
Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B. Varale
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant-wife, Sau. Jiya, and the respondent-husband, Kuldeep, were married on June 27, 2012, in Nagpur as per Hindu customs. After two months of cohabitation, the appellant left the matrimonial home, allegedly due to cruelty and disagreements over living in a joint family. The respondent filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The appellant had earlier sought annulment of marriage on allegations of fraud and dowry harassment, but her petition was dismissed.
The Family Court granted the divorce on grounds of mental cruelty, citing false allegations against the husband and his family, as well as aspersions on his character. The High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision. The appellant challenged the decree before the Supreme Court, while the respondent disclosed that he had remarried in 2019. Mediation efforts failed, and the Supreme Court proceeded to decide the matter on merits, focusing on the appellant’s claim for a financial settlement.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
- Whether the allegations of cruelty against the husband were sufficient to justify the divorce decree?
- Whether the respondent’s remarriage in 2019 and subsequent family responsibilities impact his obligation to provide maintenance to the appellant?
- Whether the appellant is entitled to a fair one-time settlement amount considering the financial status of both parties?
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
- Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Grounds for divorce, including cruelty and desertion.
- Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 – Mandates reconciliation attempts before granting divorce.
- Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Provides for maintenance to a spouse unable to sustain themselves.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT (SAU. JIYA)
The appellant contended that she was wrongfully accused of cruelty and that she wished to cohabit with the respondent but was compelled to leave due to mistreatment. She argued that the divorce decree was unjust as her allegations of fraud and dowry demands were dismissed without proper consideration. She further asserted that the respondent had multiple sources of income, including a gym business, rental properties, and employment at SPANCO, making his claim of being a daily-wage worker false. She demanded a substantial one-time financial settlement, alleging that the respondent’s standard of living was far superior to what he had disclosed.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT (KULDEEP)
The respondent maintained that the divorce decree was justified, as the appellant had falsely accused him and his family of fraud and dowry harassment. He argued that the appellant’s demand for financial compensation was exaggerated, claiming that he worked as a daily-wage electrician with an unstable income and had financial obligations towards his second wife and dependent family members. He also accused the appellant of running a profitable salon business in Nagpur, implying that she was financially self-sufficient and did not require further monetary support.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court observed that both parties had accepted the divorce but remained in dispute over financial settlement. The Court noted that the respondent had not been forthright in Disclosing his assets and income, as evidence suggested multiple income sources, including rental earnings and a gym business. The appellant, however, had also failed to prove an excessively high income from her salon.
Given that the couple had no children and the marriage lasted only two months, the Court found that awarding a large sum would be unfair. However, considering the respondent’s financial capacity and his reluctance to support the appellant, the Court determined that a one-time alimony of ₹10,00,000 would be equitable.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court upheld the divorce decree and directed the respondent to pay ₹10,00,000 as a one-time settlement to the appellant within three months. This amount covered all pending and future claims. The appeal was partially allowed to the extent of financial relief, and all pending applications were disposed of.
CONCLUSION
It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court of India has already determined in Sau. Jiya vs. Kuldeep that equity and distribution of finances plays a key role in deciding the divorce settlement. The court, while allowing the divorce, also stated that there had to be a fair settlement in view of the financial means of the respondent and the support required by the appellant after the divorce. In the process of settling disputes between the spouse, the court kept in mind the interest of both the parties by granting alimony of ₹10,00,000. There is no question that the respondent will bear an unnecessary burden, while at the same time, the appellant is placed in a position where she had to be financially looked after. This ruling also enhances the tenet that maintenance is to be awarded based on the actual financial position instead of some vague assertion made which is the easiest way out in marital conflict.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY SUBRAT ASHISH KHARE
