The Supreme Court recently pronounced its verdict in a long-pending matrimonial case between a couple who have been married since 1996. The case of Geeta Reeta Mishra Vs Ajay Kumar Mishra arose from a divorce petition by the husband in 2009 on the grounds of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case over the years witnessed simultaneous litigation under both matrimonial and domestic violence legislations, including several appeals and revisions before various courts.
Background of the Case:
The husband and wife married in May 1996 and have two children, a daughter who was born in 1997 and a son in 1999. In 2009, the husband went to the Family Court seeking divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. The wife rebutted such allegations and also filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In the domestic violence case, the husband was first ordered to make monthly maintenance. Subsequently, the wife obtained an appellate order convicting the husband of domestic violence and granting compensation, which was increased to Rs. 7,00,000 by the Delhi High Court. The husband's objection to this order was turned down by the Supreme Court in March 2023.
While this was happening, the Family Court granted the husband's divorce plea in September 2019, which was confirmed by the Delhi High Court in December 2023. The High Court noted that the couple had been living apart since 2009, with frequent police complaints and no attempt at reconciliation. It considered the wife's making of false complaints as cruelty and therefore warranted the decree for divorce.
Points Before the Supreme Court:
The wife appealed to the High Court's validation of divorce in front of the Supreme Court. During the hearing, she curtailed her request to asking for monetary support for their daughter's marriage alone. She appealed to the Court to order the husband to pay Rs. 10,00,000, citing that despite her meager means, she had brought up both children primarily by herself.
The wife contended that the husband had enough means from his business and property earnings, an assertion disputed by the husband, who claimed not to have any source of income.
Decision of Supreme Court:
The Court held that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and reconciliations had been unsuccessful. It confirmed the divorce order, holding that the husband and wife were separated for more than 15 years and there was no room for a revival of their relationship.
Regarding the expense of the daughter's wedding, the Court reiterated that it was a father's moral and legal obligation to provide for children, irrespective of his disagreement with the spouse. It held the wife's request to be reasonable and modest under the circumstances. The Bench ordered the husband to remit an amount of Rs. 10,00,000 in favour of the wife by 15th October 2025 towards the marriage expenses of their daughter. The wife is requested to furnish her bank account details to enable the payment.
In default, the Court authorized the restoration of the appeals for orders further necessary.
Conclusion:
By upholding the divorce while at the same time protecting the financial interest of the daughter, the Supreme Court ended a conflict that had lasted for more than a decade and a half. The judgment reiterates the principle that the responsibility of a parent towards children is not altered even if there is marital conflict, and taking care of their major life events, like marriage, is a fundamental obligation.
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
