Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court observed that alimony received after the first divorce was not a relevant factor to determine the alimony payable after the divorce of the second marriage.

The Court rejected the husband's contention that the wife was not entitled to alimony as she got a fair settlement from her first divorce.

"The appellant-husband asserts that the 2nd respondent-wife got a fair settlement as alimony from the earlier divorce; which, we find at the outset, is irrelevant in the adjudication of the present dispute...the alimony received by the respondent on the dissolution of her first marriage is not a relevant consideration" the Court said.

The Court made this observation while invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was essentially hearing a petition filed by the husband seeking to quash a criminal case under Section 498A IPC filed by the wife against him, alleging domestic cruelty.

The parties had earlier applied for divorce on the ground of mutual consent based on a settlement agreement. However, the wife resiled from the agreement, following which the husband approached the Bombay High Court to quash the 498A case. Since the Bombay High Court refused, the husband appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the petition, the husband also filed the application under Article 142 seeking dissolution of the marriage. The husband offered to give to the wife his flat in a posh area in Mumbai which is valued at Rs 4 crores. In the alternative, the husband offered to pay Rs 4 crores in cash.

However, the wife demanded permanent alimony of Rs 12 crores. In response, the husband said that he is now presently unemployed, as he left his earlier job in a private bank to look after his autistic child from his first marriage.

The Supreme Court found that the marriage, which lasted about one year and nine months before the estrangement, was irretrievably broken down. The Court also found the settlement offered by the husband to be reasonable. Also, his responsibility to look after an autistic child and his current financial status were found to be relevant considerations.

Noting that the flat, which is located in Kalpataru Habitat, Mumbai, is of substantial value, the Court said that gifting it to the wife would reasonably take care of her after the divorce.

Refecting the further claim of alimony, the Court observed, " Further claim of alimony is not justified, especially looking at the appellant's status which as of now is of an unemployed person," the Court observed. The Court also rejected the wife's reliance on the LinkedIn profile of the husband to argue that he was employed.

The Court further noted that the wife was gainfully employed and has the educational qualifications as well as the potential, by way of her experience in the field of information technology, to maintain herself.

The Court also quashed the case under S.498A IPC noting that the allegations were vague and banal, and were in fact exaggerated accounts of marital squabbles.

The Court directed the husband to execute the gift deed by August 30, 2025, upon which the divorce will take effect.

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan appeared for the appellant-husband. The respondent-wife appeared in person.

Case : A v. State of Maharashtra.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 773

Click here to read the judgment