While granting the husband (a family court judge) divorce, the High Court had earlier ordered him to pay his wife (a former Additional Advocate General) permanent alimony of ₹30 lakh.
The Supreme Court recently affirmed the divorce granted to a family court judge and increased the permanent alimony payable to his wife, a former Additional Advocate General (AAG), from ₹30 lakh to ₹50 lakh.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision on divorce but observed that the earlier alimony amount was inadequate to ensure the wife’s financial security.
“The sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) awarded by the High Court is enhanced to Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) , which shall be paid by the respondenthusband to the appellant-wife within a period of three months from the date of this judgment,” it ordered.
The Court observed that the marriage had been emotionally broken for over ten years, and concluded that dissolving the relationship was in the best interest of both spouses as well as their 17-year-old daughter.
The couple married in December 2008, when the husband was undergoing judicial training in Chandigarh and the wife was serving as an Additional Advocate General. They welcomed their daughter in November 2009.
However, the relationship soon soured, and they started living apart in 2012. In 2018, the husband filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty. By then, he had been posted as a family court judge, while the wife had ceased practising as an advocate.
The husband initially withdrew his divorce petition but later filed it again. The present proceedings were instituted in Mohali in October 2019.
In April 2023, the family court rejected the plea, finding that the wife had not been proven guilty of cruelty and that, on the contrary, it was the husband who had subjected her to ill-treatment. The husband then challenged this ruling before the High Court.
In August 2024, the High Court set aside the family court’s decision, holding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. It granted a decree of divorce and ordered the husband to pay ₹30 lakh as permanent alimony. It further implemented several safeguards for the daughter, including directing that ₹41 lakh from an LIC policy be deposited in her name, a monthly payment of ₹30,000 for her needs, and ensuring that she could not be disinherited.
The wife then approached the Supreme Court seeking an increase in the alimony amount.
The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court that reconciliation was no longer possible after 13 years of separation and a complete breakdown of trust. It observed that forcing the parties to continue in a dead marriage would undermine their dignity and negatively impact their daughter’s emotional well-being.
The Bench further noted that, even after interacting with both spouses, it was evident that no real relationship remained between them.
The Court pointed out that since the husband is a serving judicial officer, he has an even greater responsibility to ensure that his wife and child are financially secure. After reviewing his income, status, and future earnings, along with the wife’s current financial condition, the Court decided that the alimony must be increased to allow her to live with dignity and independence.
The Court explained that the rise in alimony was necessary because the wife should be able to maintain a lifestyle similar to the one she had during the marriage. It also noted that their daughter is now close to adulthood and needs continued stability and support.
The Bench increased the alimony from ₹30 lakh to ₹50 lakh and ordered that the amount be paid within three months.
In its order, the Court stated that the payment of ₹50 lakh would serve as the “full and final settlement of all financial claims” arising out of the marriage, and directed that all pending civil and criminal cases between the couple be closed.
The Court further clarified that the remaining directions issued by the High Court — including those concerning the daughter’s financial security and her future marriage expenses — would continue to remain in force.
