15 July 2024 Divorce Law >> Family Law   |   Domestic Violence >> Family Law   |   Dowry >> Marriage Law  

In a landmark ruling of Kiran Jyot Maini vs Anish Pramod Patel, the Supreme Court has recently addressed a high-profile matrimonial dispute involving a petition for interim maintenance and the dissolution of marriage. The case, which drew significant attention, centered on the appellant-wife's claims against the respondent-husband, leading to a comprehensive judgment addressing both divorce and financial settlements.

Background and Legal Proceedings:

The marital union between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband began on April 30, 2015. However, discord arose within a year, culminating in an FIR filed by the wife under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The initial legal confrontation included proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act), where the wife sought interim maintenance. Initially, a Judicial Magistrate ordered the respondent to provide interim maintenance. This order was later modified by the Additional Sessions Judge, increasing the monthly maintenance payments. The respondent contested this modification through various legal avenues, including appeals and petitions before the High Courts.

Delhi High Court's Orders and Supreme Court Review:

The Delhi High Court's recent ruling directed the respondent to pay only 20% of the total arrears of interim maintenance due. The appellant's requests for a complete settlement and the attachment of the respondent's bank accounts were denied. These orders prompted the appellant to challenge the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the prolonged litigation and failed reconciliation attempts, found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage, considering the extended duration of separation and numerous unsuccessful attempts at mediation.

Permanent Alimony Determination:

With the dissolution of the marriage, the issue of interim maintenance was concluded. The appellant had requested a substantial one-time settlement of Rs. 5 to 7 crores, while the respondent offered Rs. 50 lakhs. After evaluating the financial circumstances of both parties, the Court deemed the appellant’s demand excessive and the respondent’s offer inadequate. The Supreme Court settled on a permanent alimony of Rs. 2 crores. This amount, deemed fair and reasonable, accounts for all pending and future claims. The respondent is required to pay this sum within four months. This decision reflects the Court’s commitment to ensuring a fair financial settlement for the dependent spouse post-divorce.

Final Ruling and Implications:

The Supreme Court’s judgment allowed the appeals, set aside previous orders, and granted a divorce under Article 142. The permanent alimony of Rs. 2 crores is to be paid within the stipulated timeframe. Additionally, any pending related cases are to be resolved in accordance with this judgment. In related matters, similar appeals (SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1168-1171 of 2024) were also resolved with consistent terms and directions, reinforcing the Court’s stance on equitable settlement in matrimonial disputes. This ruling underscores the Supreme Court's role in resolving complex matrimonial cases where reconciliation is no longer feasible, and highlights its approach to fair financial compensation for individuals affected by marital dissolution.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973    

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961    

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005    

Special Marriage Act, 1954