Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court in the case of Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain directed a husband to pay Rs. 5 Crores as permanent alimony to his wife in a one-time settlement after declaring their marriage "irretrievably broken down."  

• The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, also ordered Rs. 1 Crore for their son's maintenance. The decision considered the husband's financial capacity and the wife's needs, emphasizing fairness without penalizing the husband. 

What was the Background of Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain case? 

• Parvin Kumar Jain and Anju Jain got married on December 13, 1998, following traditional Hindu ceremonies, and had a son born in May 2001. 
• The couple's marital relationship quickly deteriorated, with the parties separating in January 2004 after approximately five years of living together. 
• In May 2004, the husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, alleging that his wife was short-tempered and hostile towards him and his family. 
• The wife countered these allegations, claiming that she was treated poorly by her husband and his family, feeling more like a domestic helper than a wife, and ultimately leaving the matrimonial home fearing for her safety. 
• During their separation, multiple legal proceedings were initiated, primarily revolving around maintenance for the wife and son, with both parties challenging various court orders over the years. 
• The wife remained unemployed throughout their separation, residing with their son in a house owned by her mother, while the husband pursued a successful banking career, working in senior roles and eventually becoming a CEO in Dubai. 
• Despite attempts at reconciliation, the couple's relationship continued to deteriorate, with prolonged litigation and no prospect of reunion. 
• After nearly two decades of separation and multiple court battles, both parties mutually agreed that their marriage had irretrievably broken down and consented to its dissolution. 
• The Supreme Court ultimately decided to dissolve their marriage and provide a comprehensive financial settlement that would secure the wife's and son's future. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court meticulously examined the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, considering factors such as the prolonged separation of over two decades, multiple serious allegations, and the complete absence of cohabitation since 2004. 
• The Court noted that despite initial cohabitation for approximately five to six years, the relationship between the parties was consistently strained, with both parties making substantial allegations of misconduct against each other. 
• Judicial precedents, particularly the cases of Shilpa Sailesh and Kiran Jyot Maini, were referenced to substantiate the Court's discretionary power to dissolve a marriage when it has conclusively and irretrievably broken down. 
• The Court recognized that reconciliation attempts during the divorce proceedings had failed, and the prolonged maintenance litigation indicated an irreparable breakdown of the marital relationship. 
• While dissolving the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to ensure financial protection for the dependent spouse, particularly considering the wife's unemployment and the son's recent graduation. 
• The Court carefully assessed the husband's financial capacity, considering his senior banking roles, substantial investments, multiple properties, and current position as a CEO in Dubai, to determine an equitable one-time settlement. 
• Ultimately, the Supreme Court viewed the dissolution not as a punitive measure, but as a means to provide a just and reasonable financial arrangement that would secure the future of both the wife and the son. 

What are the Supreme Court Guidelines for Alimony? 

• The Supreme Court stated that the following guidelines are not a rigid formula but flexible principles to ensure fair and just alimony settlements. 
  • Social and economic status of husband and wife. 
  • Basic future needs of wife and children. 
  • Qualification and employment status of both parties. 
  • Means of income and property owned. 
  • Wife's standard of living during marriage. 
  • Employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities. 
  • Reasonable litigation costs for non-working wife. 
  • Husband's financial capacity, income, and maintenance obligations. 

Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 

• About: 
  • Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is a crucial provision addressing permanent alimony and maintenance between spouses after divorce or separation.  
  • The primary objective of Section 25 is to ensure financial protection and support for a spouse after the dissolution of marriage, taking into account the economic circumstances and needs of both parties. 
  • Section 25 represents a progressive approach to post-divorce financial arrangements, recognizing the potential economic vulnerabilities of spouses after marriage dissolution and providing a legal mechanism for their protection and support. 
• Scope of Maintenance Order: 
  • The court has broad discretionary powers to grant maintenance at the time of passing a divorce decree or at any subsequent time 
  • Either the husband or the wife can apply for maintenance. 
  • The maintenance can be awarded as:  
    • A gross sum (lump-sum payment). 
    • Monthly or periodical payments. 
    • For a term not exceeding the life of the applicant. 
  • Factors Considered by the Court When determining maintenance, the court considers: 
    • Respondent's income 
    • Respondent's other property 
    • Applicant's income and property 
    • Conduct of both parties 
    • Other circumstances of the case 
• Security for Maintenance: 
  • The court can secure maintenance payments by placing a charge on the respondent's immovable property if necessary. 
  • Modification Provisions: The section provides flexibility through two important sub-sections: 
• Subsection (2): Change in Circumstances: 
  • Either party can request variation, modification, or rescission of the maintenance order. 
  • This can be done if there is a significant change in the circumstances of either party. 
  • The court has discretion to modify the order as it deems just. 
• Subsection (3):  
  • Remarriage or Conduct The court may vary, modify, or rescind the maintenance order if: 
    • The party receiving maintenance remarries. 
    • In case of the wife, she has not remained chaste. 
    • In case of the husband, he has had sexual intercourse outside wedlock.