Supreme Court Grants Divorce and ₹2 Crore Alimony

Short Summary

The Supreme Court of India dissolved the marriage between Kiran Jyot Maini and Anish Pramod Patel, citing irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Constitution. Despite both being financially independent, the court ordered the husband to pay ₹2 crore as permanent alimony. The judgment raises questions about fairness in maintenance laws, particularly when both spouses are earning.

Brief facts of the Case

• The couple married in 2015 but separated within a year. They have been living apart for nine years.
• The wife accused the husband of cruelty, domestic violence, and dowry harassment, leading to multiple criminal and civil cases.
• Both parties attempted mediation several times, but reconciliation failed.
• The wife initially demanded ₹5-7 crore as a one-time settlement, while the husband offered ₹50 lakh.
• The court ruled the marriage had completely broken down and granted divorce under Article 142.
• It ordered the husband to pay ₹2 crore as permanent alimony despite the wife being employed.

Legal Provisions Involved in the Case

• Article 142 of the Constitution – Special powers of the Supreme Court to ensure complete justice.
• Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) – Protection and relief for women in domestic disputes.
• Section 498A IPC – Cruelty by husband or relatives.
• Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Criminal penalties for dowry demands.

The Supreme Court used its discretionary powers under Article 142 to grant divorce and decide alimony, even though the case did not meet the usual legal grounds for divorce.

Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent

Husband’s Arguments (Men’s Rights Perspective)

• The couple separated after less than a year of marriage and had been living apart for nine years.
• The wife earns ₹1.39 lakh per month and owns several assets, making her financially stable.
• He has financial obligations, including elderly parents and loans.
• The ₹5-7 crore demand was excessive, and he was only willing to pay ₹50 lakh.
• He never legally adopted the wife’s daughter from a previous marriage, yet she included her expenses in maintenance claims.

Wife’s Arguments

• The husband earns ₹5 lakh per month, significantly more than her salary.
• She is entitled to maintain the same standard of living post-divorce.
• Divorce and separation have caused financial instability, and she deserves compensation.
• The Supreme Court should ensure financial security through a fair one-time settlement.

Court’s Key Observations

• The marriage had broken down beyond repair, justifying divorce under Article 142.
• Both parties are financially independent, but the husband earns more, making him responsible for maintenance.
• Alimony should not be a punishment but must ensure a reasonable standard of living for the wife.
• The wife’s ₹5-7 crore demand was excessive, but the ₹50 lakh offered by the husband was too low.
• The court set ₹2 crore as a balanced and fair amount for permanent alimony.

The Supreme Court granted divorce and ordered the husband to pay ₹2 crore within four months.

Conclusion of the Judgment

The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage and ruled that the husband must pay ₹2 crore as a one-time permanent alimony. The judgment highlights how courts continue to impose financial burdens on men, even when both spouses are earning professionals.

• Men must pay alimony even when the wife is financially independent.
• Courts assume men should maintain their ex-wives, regardless of their financial struggles.
• The legal system lacks clear guidelines on fair maintenance amounts.

Comments from the Author of this website

This ruling once again raises serious concerns about bias in maintenance laws:

• Why should an earning woman receive such a huge alimony?
• Men’s financial obligations towards parents and other responsibilities are ignored.
• Alimony is often used as a financial settlement rather than actual need-based support.
• There are no clear legal guidelines on deciding alimony amounts, making it arbitrary.

Final Thoughts

While ensuring financial security is important, alimony should be fair and reasonable. Courts must stop assuming that men alone must provide financial support, especially when both partners are earning well. Until maintenance laws become gender-neutral, men will continue to face unfair financial burdens in divorce cases.

Read Complete Judgement Here