AMUTHA versus A.R. SUBRAMANIAN
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 755, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 755 : 2024 INSC 1033
Amutha
v.
A.R. Subramanian
(Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 2023)
19 December 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellant-wife herein is challenging the grant of divorce.
Headnotes†
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Cruelty 
and desertion – The High Court found that the respondent-
husband had sufficiently established the grounds of cruelty 
and desertion u/s.13(1)(ia) and (ib) of HMA – It held that the 
appellant’s false criminal complaint and her indifference 
to reconciliation efforts caused significant mental agony 
to the respondent, amounting to cruelty – Additionally, her 
prolonged separation without reasonable cause constituted 
desertion – Thus, the High Court dissolved the marriage – 
Correctness:
Held: One of the primary grounds for the dissolution of the 
marriage is the appellant’s conduct, which constitutes mental cruelty 
u/s.13(1)(ia) of HMA – The respondent has provided sufficient 
evidence to show that the appellant was engaged in a pattern 
of behavior that caused him immense mental and emotional 
distress  – This included filing false and baseless criminal 
complaints against the respondent and his family, which not only 
strained their relationship but also caused significant damage to 
his reputation and peace of mind – The appellant’s conduct falls 
squarely within the definition of mental cruelty – Moreover, the 
evidence suggests that the appellant’s actions
were not isolated 
incidents but formed a pattern of behavior that made cohabitation 
impossible – The fact that the parties have been living separately 
for two decades now further reinforces the conclusion that the 
marriage is no longer viable – The length of separation and the 
evident animosity between the parties make it clear that there is 
* Author
756
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
no possibility of the marriage being revived – The evidence in the 
present case points unequivocally to an irretrievable breakdown of 
the marriage – The appellant’s insistence on reconciliation appears 
to be more of a strategy to prolong the proceedings rather than a 
genuine effort to revive the relationship – In matrimonial disputes, 
this Court has emphasized the need to prioritize welfare and 
dignity of both parties – In view of the above, this Court upholds 
the judgment of the High Court granting a decree of divorce to the 
respondent – The appellant’s submissions are rejected as lacking 
in merit, both on procedural and substantive grounds – However, 
while granting the decree of divorce, it is deemed appropriate to 
award permanent alimony to the appellant wife and the parties’ 
daughter – The respondent husband is directed to pay a sum of 
Rs. 50,00,000/- to the appellant as permanent alimony and an 
additional Rs. 50,00,000/- to their daughter for her education and 
future expenses, such as her marriage.[Paras 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 
34, 35, 36, 40]
Case Law Cited
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [2006] 3 SCR 53 : (2006) 4 SCC 
558; Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [2007] 4 SCR 428 : (2007) 4 
SCC 511; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Shiv Dayal & Anr [2019] 
10 SCR 243 : (2019) 8 SCC 637; N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane 
[1975] 3 SCR 967 : (1975) 2 SCC 326; V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat 
[1993] Supp. 3 SCR 796 : (1994) 1 SCC 337; K. Srinivas Rao
v. 
D.A. Deepa [2013] 2 SCR 126 : (2013) 5 SCC 226; Ashok Hurra 
v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri [1997] 2 SCR 875 : (1997) 4 SCC 226; Shilpa 
Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023] 5 SCR 165 : (2022) 15 SCC 
754; Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel [2024] 7 SCR 942 : 
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1724; Rajnesh v. Neha [2020] 13 SCR 
1093 : (2021) 2 SCC 324 – referred to.
List of Acts
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
List of Keywords
Divorce; Cruelty; Mental cruelty; Desertion; Prolonged separation; 
Animus deserendi; Reconciliation; Frivolous legal proceedings; 
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage; Permanent alimony; Child’s 
education and future expenses.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
757
Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.06.2018 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CMSA (MD) No. 34 of 2014
Appearances for Parties
Mrs. V Mohana, R. Nedumaran, Sr. Advs., C Rajaram, Ms. 
S. Ramamani, Ms. Shashi Panwar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Haripriya Padmanaban, Sr. Adv., S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, 
Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Ms. Pariksha, 
Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.	
The present appeal challenges the validity of the order dated 
08.06.2018 passed by the Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench in 
CMSA (MD) No. 34 of 2014 wherein the High Court allowed the 
appeal of the respondent – husband herein, thereby setting aside 
the judgments of the two lower Courts, and thus granting a decree 
of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant herein is the wife 
challenging the grant of divorce.
2.	
The appellant and the respondent got married on 30.06.2002. At the 
time of their marriage, the respondent was employed as a software 
engineer in Punjab. After the marriage, the appellant moved to 
Chandigarh with the respondent and secured employment as an 
engineer in the same company as the respondent. The couple lived 
together for a few months, during which the appellant conceived 
a child. Subsequently, she returned to her parental home for the 
delivery
of the child. On 09.07.2003, she gave birth to a female child. 
The respondent visited to see the child, but when he requested the 
appellant to return to the matrimonial home, she allegedly refused. 
Consequently, the respondent issued a legal notice for reunion 
on 29.12.2003, to which the appellant replied on 31.12.2003 with 
allegations against him. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition
758
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
for restitution of conjugal rights in January 2004, pending which 
attempts at reconciliation through a panchayat failed.
3.	
During the pendency of the restitution petition, the appellant agreed 
to resume cohabitation and joined the respondent at his residence 
on 28.06.2004. The couple subsequently moved to Bengaluru, 
Karnataka, where they resided together. However, the respondent 
alleged that the appellant treated him with cruelty during this 
period. Eventually, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was 
dismissed for default. The appellant once again left the matrimonial 
home allegedly without informing the respondent and returned to her 
parental home. The respondent claimed that this desertion, combined 
with the mental anguish caused by her absence during the demise 
of his father, amounted to cruelty. Consequently, the respondent filed 
a divorce petition in 2010 on the grounds of cruelty.
4.	
The appellant denied the allegations in the petition for dissolution of 
marriage and contended that the respondent was at fault for failing to 
bring her back to the matrimonial home. She filed a counterclaim for 
restitution of conjugal rights in her response before the Trial Court, 
expressing her willingness to reconcile. Both parties presented their 
cases: the respondent examined himself as PW1 and submitted 
twelve documents as evidence, while the appellant testified as RW1 
but did not produce any documentary
evidence. After evaluating the 
evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the respondent’s divorce petition, 
holding that he has failed to establish that the appellant’s conduct 
amounted to mental cruelty.
5.	
The respondent’s appeal against this decision was also dismissed 
by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court concurred 
with the Trial Court’s findings, observing that the respondent had 
not proven that the appellant had voluntarily deserted him without 
cause or inflicted mental cruelty. Instead, the First Appellate Court 
noted that the appellant had expressed a desire for reconciliation.
6.	
Challenging the findings and the judgment of the First Appellate 
Court, the respondent approached the High Court. The High Court 
in its judgment reviewed the contentions of both the parties, as 
well as the rulings of the Courts below. The respondent’ primary 
contention was that the appellant had subjected him to cruelty, both 
mental and physical. He argued that her actions, including filing false 
cases against him and deserting the matrimonial home, amounted to
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
759
Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian
mental cruelty. He further claimed that despite his repeated attempts 
to reconcile, the appellant remained adamant and disinterested in 
reuniting, which led to the breakdown of the marriage. The respondent 
emphasized that their separation, which had lasted for over ten years, 
demonstrated the irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship.
7.	
On the other hand, the appellant contended that the Courts below 
had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly dismissed the 
respondent’s claims for divorce. Her counsel before the High Court 
argued that the alleged acts of cruelty were not substantiated with 
sufficient evidence and that trivial disputes or normal wear and tear 
of married life could not constitute grounds for divorce. The appellant 
maintained that the burden of proof rested on the respondent to 
demonstrate acts of cruelty, which he failed to do. Furthermore, the 
appellant contended that there was no evidence to suggest she had 
no interest in continuing the marital relationship, and the claims of 
cruelty were unsubstantiated.
8.	
The High Court, in its findings, held that lodging false complaints 
against a spouse amounts to mental cruelty. In this case, the wife 
had filed a criminal complaint alleging dowry harassment against the 
husband and his family but later abandoned it without pursuing the 
matter further. The Court inferred that the complaint was baseless 
and filed with intent to
harass, constituting an act of mental cruelty. 
Furthermore, the Court observed that the couple had been living 
separately for over fifteen years by then, which demonstrated an 
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Drawing from judgments of 
this Court in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli,1 and Samar Ghosh vs. 
Jaya Ghosh,2 the High Court noted that such prolonged separation 
indicates that the marital relationship is beyond repair and forcing 
the parties to remain in a dead marriage would be neither just nor 
beneficial. Additionally, the High Court concluded that the appellant’s 
act of leaving the matrimonial home without reasonable cause, 
coupled with her lack of interest in reconciliation, amounted to 
desertion.
9.	
The High Court extensively analyzed the principles laid down by 
this Court, particularly in the case of Samar Ghosh (Supra), which 
1	
[2006] 3 SCR 53 : (2006) 4 SCC 558
2	
[2007] 4 SCR 428 : (2007) 4 SCC 511
760
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
provides illustrative examples of mental cruelty. These principles 
emphasize that mental cruelty is a subjective state of mind caused 
by prolonged anguish, frustration, and emotional turmoil, which 
renders it unreasonable for spouses to cohabit.
10.	 The High Court observed that the appellant had filed a false 
criminal complaint accusing the respondent and his family of dowry 
harassment. However, the appellant neither pursued the complaint 
nor provided reasonable justification for her actions. Her conduct 
demonstrated malice and intent to harass, causing mental agony 
to the respondent and his family. The High Court inferred that this 
amounted to mental cruelty, as the complaint disrupted the matrimonial 
harmony and caused significant emotional distress to the respondent.
11.	 The High Court also addressed the respondent’s claim of desertion. 
The appellant had been living separately from the respondent for 
over fifteen years without valid reasons or attempts at reconciliation. 
Although she filed a counterclaim seeking restitution of conjugal 
rights, she failed to actively pursue it, revealing lack of genuine intent 
to resume marital cohabitation. Prolonged separation, coupled with 
absence of any reasonable explanation, demonstrated the appellant’s 
intention to permanently withdraw from the marital relationship. The 
High Court held that this constituted desertion under the principles 
established by this Court,
which define desertion as the willful and 
permanent abandonment of matrimonial obligations without consent 
of the other spouse.
12.	 The High Court also relied on precedents wherein this Court had 
held that filing false criminal complaints and leveling unsubstantiated 
allegations amounts to mental cruelty. It emphasized that false 
accusations erode trust and affection, irreparably damaging marital 
bond. Additionally, the High Court observed that the appellant’s 
behavior caused an irreparable rift between the parties, rendering 
their marriage broken beyond repair. Prolonged separation of over 
fifteen years, coupled with lack of any effort to resolve disputes 
or reconcile, supported the conclusion that the marital bond had 
become a legal fiction.
13.	 The High Court noted that the respondent’s efforts for reunion 
were unsuccessful, as the appellant displayed indifference towards 
reconciliation. Her insistence on retrieving her belongings from the 
matrimonial home and the absence of any subsequent action for
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
761
Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian
restitution of conjugal rights further illustrated her lack of interest in 
continuing the marriage. Her admission during cross-examination that 
she had not taken any steps for reconciliation further strengthened 
the conclusion that she was not genuinely invested in salvaging the 
marriage. The Court emphasized that the factum of separation and 
animus deserendi, that is, the intention to desert, were conclusively 
established, and in the absence of reasonable justification for her 
conduct, the appellant’s actions amounted to both cruelty and 
desertion.
14.	 The High Court underscored that mental cruelty cannot be established 
through direct evidence but must be inferred from the cumulative 
circumstances of the case. It observed that the appellant’s behavior, 
including the filing of a false dowry harassment complaint and her 
prolonged separation from the respondent, clearly fell within the 
parameters of mental cruelty as outlined in Samar Ghosh (Supra). 
This included sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, 
and indifference that rendered cohabitation intolerable and caused 
significant mental anguish to the respondent.
15.	 Further, the High Court addressed the breakdown of the marriage, 
noting that the prolonged separation of over fifteen years demonstrated 
that the marital relationship was beyond repair. Relying on precedents 
such as Naveen Kohli (Supra), it held that maintaining the facade 
of
marriage under such circumstances serves no purpose and only 
perpetuates emotional distress for both parties. The High Court 
emphasized that refusing to dissolve a marriage that has become 
defunct de facto, despite its legal tie, undermines the sanctity of 
marriage and disregards the emotional well-being of the parties.
16.	 Hence, the High Court found that the respondent had sufficiently 
established the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) 
and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19553. It held that the appellant’s 
false criminal complaint and her indifference to reconciliation efforts 
caused significant mental agony to the respondent, amounting to 
cruelty. Additionally, her prolonged separation without reasonable 
cause constituted desertion. The High Court dissolved the marriage 
and set aside the decisions of the Trial Court and the First Appellate 
Court, granting a decree of divorce to the husband. It noted that 
3	
In short, ‘HMA’
762
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
maintaining the marital tie under these circumstances was contrary 
to public interest and the principles of justice, and therefore, the 
appeal was allowed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
17.	 The appellant contends that the High Court erred in reversing the 
concurrent findings of fact established by the Trial Court and the 
First Appellate Court. According to the appellant, the High Court 
overstepped its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 19084, which allows intervention only in cases involving 
a substantial question of law. The appellant asserts that the High 
Court introduced an entirely new ground—whether the marriage 
had irretrievably broken down—without this issue being argued in 
the earlier proceedings. This, the appellant argues, goes against 
established principles that the High Court cannot reappreciate 
evidence or interfere with findings unless they are unsupported 
by evidence, based on a misreading of material evidence, or are 
manifestly unreasonable.
18.	 The appellant highlights that the respondent had not raised any 
grounds for interference with the concurrent findings in the second 
appeal under Section 100, CPC. The appellant supports this 
contention by citing the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan 
& Ors. vs. Shiv Dayal & Anr,5 which reiterates the limited scope of 
second appeals. The appellant further argues that the First Appellate 
Court had already
conducted a detailed reappreciation of the evidence 
and reached a reasoned conclusion. Therefore, the High Court lacked 
jurisdiction to revisit these findings.
19.	 The appellant also submits that the High Court erred in addressing 
the issue of condonation under Section 23(1)(b) of HMA. Referring to 
this Court’s decision in N.G. Dastane vs. S. Dastane,6 the appellant 
asserts that acts of cruelty or desertion were condoned when the 
parties reconciled and resumed cohabitation after the filing of a 
complaint. The appellant emphasizes that the respondent husband, 
during cross-examination, admitted that the death of his father was 
4	
In short, ‘CPC’
5	
[2019] 10 SCR 243 : (2019) 8 SCC 637
6	
[1975] 3 SCR 967 : (1975) 2 SCC 326
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
763
Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian
unrelated to the appellant’s actions, undermining the claim of cruelty. 
The appellant argues that the High Court failed to appreciate this 
evidence and incorrectly reversed the concurrent findings of the 
lower Courts.
20.	 Lastly, the appellant underscores that the respondent did not seek 
divorce on the grounds of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of HMA 
but instead benefited from his own wrongful actions. The appellant 
claims that the respondent deserted her and then sought divorce on 
fabricated grounds. The appellant states that she does not wish to 
burden her daughter with the stigma of divorce, nor is she seeking 
financial support from the respondent. She simply wishes to uphold 
her dignity and safeguard her family’s reputation.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
21.	 The respondent argues that the marriage has irretrievably broken 
down and should be dissolved to allow both parties to move on with 
their lives. He submits that the appellant subjected him to cruelty, 
including filing frivolous criminal complaints against him and his family. 
The respondent claims that these complaints caused mental agony 
and created an irreparable rift between the parties. The respondent 
asserts that the High Court rightly considered the irretrievable 
breakdown of the marriage as a ground for divorce, even though it 
was not explicitly raised in the earlier proceedings.
22.	 The respondent further contends that the
appellant’s allegations of 
cruelty and desertion were baseless and unsupported by evidence. 
He argues that the appellant lodged complaints against him and 
his family, which amounted to harassment. Although there was an 
attempt at reconciliation, the respondent maintains that the complaints 
caused lasting damage to the marital relationship. He submits that 
the High Court correctly found that the complaints, even if later 
condoned, had a significant impact on his mental well-being and 
justified dissolution of the marriage.
23.	 The respondent challenges the appellant’s reliance on concurrent 
findings of fact, arguing that the High Court was justified in interfering 
because the lower Courts failed to consider critical aspects of the 
evidence. He asserts that the Trial Court and the First Appellate 
Court ignored the cumulative effect of the appellant’s conduct, which 
amounted to mental cruelty. The respondent highlights that the High
764
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Court, in its judgment, noted these deficiencies and addressed the 
substantial question of law concerning the irretrievable breakdown 
of the marriage.
24.	 The respondent also argues that he has acted in good faith throughout 
the proceedings and has consistently sought a resolution to the marital 
discord. He claims that the appellant’s unwillingness to accept the 
breakdown of the marriage has prolonged the litigation unnecessarily. 
The respondent submits that granting a divorce would not only end 
the prolonged legal battle but also allow both parties to rebuild their 
lives independently.
ANALYSIS
25.	 We have heard Mrs. V. Mohana, learned Senior Counsel appearing 
for the appellant and Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, learned Senior 
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 
26.	 Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by the parties 
and the facts established in this case, this Court finds itself in 
agreement with the decision of the High Court, which granted a 
decree of divorce in favor of the respondent husband. The appellant’s 
arguments centered around procedural challenges under Section 100 
of the CPC, and her insistence on reconciliation, fail to address the 
core and undeniable realities of the marriage between the parties. 
On the contrary, the evidence on record unequivocally demonstrates 
grounds of cruelty, prolonged separation, and an irretrievable 
breakdown of the marital relationship. These
grounds, coupled with 
legal precedents cited by the High Court, leave no room for doubt 
that the marriage has lost its essence and that its continuation would 
serve no meaningful purpose.
27.	 One of the primary grounds for the dissolution of the marriage is 
the appellant’s conduct, which constitutes mental cruelty under 
Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA. The respondent has provided sufficient 
evidence to show that the appellant was engaged in a pattern of 
behavior that caused him immense mental and emotional distress. 
This included filing false and baseless criminal complaints against the 
respondent and his family, which not only strained their relationship but 
also caused significant damage to his reputation and peace of mind.
28.	 In N.G. Dastane (Supra), this Court laid down the principle that 
cruelty is not confined to physical violence but also encompasses
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
765
Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian
actions that inflict mental pain and suffering that creates a reasonable 
apprehension of harm or injury to the aggrieved spouse from the 
conduct of the other spouse so as to make it impossible for them to 
stay together. In the present case, the appellant’s conduct, including 
the initiation of frivolous legal proceedings, falls squarely within the 
definition of mental cruelty. The respondent’s claim is further supported 
by this Court’s judgment in Samar Ghosh (Supra), wherein it was 
recognized that actions causing sustained emotional torment and 
loss of trust in the marital relationship constitutes cruelty.
29.	 Moreover, the evidence suggests that the appellant’s actions were 
not isolated incidents but formed a pattern of behavior that made 
cohabitation impossible. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat,7 this Court 
emphasized that sustained and deliberate acts of cruelty make it 
unreasonable to expect one spouse to continue living with the other. 
30.	 The fact that the parties have been living separately for two decades 
now further reinforces the conclusion that the marriage is no longer 
viable. Prolonged separation, as observed in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. 
Deepa,8 creates a presumption of the marriage having irretrievably 
broken down. In this case, the parties have not shared a marital life 
since 2004, and all attempts at reconciliation have failed.
31.	 Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship,
and 
shared experiences. When these essential elements are missing 
for an extended period, the marital bond becomes a mere legal 
formality devoid of any substance. This Court has consistently held 
that prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcile, is 
a relevant factor in deciding matrimonial disputes. In the present 
case, the length of separation and the evident animosity between 
the parties make it clear that there is no possibility of the marriage 
being revived.
32.	 Although irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground 
for divorce under the HMA, this Court has, in appropriate cases, 
invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to 
grant relief where the marriage is beyond repair. In Naveen Kohli 
(Supra), this Court observed that when a marriage has irretrievably 
7	
[1993] Supp. 3 SCR 796 : (1994) 1 SCC 337
8	
[2013] 2 SCR 126 : (2013) 5 SCC 226
766
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
broken down, forcing the parties to remain together serves no purpose 
and only prolongs their misery.
33.	 The evidence in the present case points unequivocally to an 
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The appellant and the 
respondent have been embroiled in legal disputes for years, with 
no signs of reconciliation. The respondent has expressed his desire 
to move on with his life, while the appellant, despite her assertions 
to the contrary, has failed to demonstrate any genuine willingness 
to repair the relationship. As held by this Court in Ashok Hurra vs. 
Rupa Bipin Zaveri 9 and Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan,10 
prolonging a dead marriage serves no interest and only perpetuates 
the agony of the parties involved.
34.	 It is evident from the record that continuation of the marriage would 
only lead to further animosity and litigation, causing harm to both 
parties. The appellant’s insistence on reconciliation appears to be 
more of a strategy to prolong the proceedings rather than a genuine 
effort to revive the relationship. In matrimonial disputes, this Court 
has emphasized the need to prioritize welfare and dignity of both 
parties. Forcing a marriage to continue when it has become a source 
of unhappiness and conflict undermines the very purpose of the 
institution of marriage. In the present case, the interests of both the 
parties are best served by allowing both parties to move on with 
their lives
independently.
35.	 In view of the above, this Court upholds the judgment of the High 
Court granting a decree of divorce to the respondent. The appellant’s 
submissions are rejected as lacking in merit, both on procedural and 
substantive grounds. This Court reiterates that cruelty, long separation, 
and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as established in this case, 
and thus, provide sufficient justification for dissolving the marriage.
36.	 While granting the decree of divorce, we deem it appropriate to 
award permanent alimony to the appellant wife and the parties’ 
daughter. Although the appellant wife has not specifically claimed any 
monetary relief or maintenance during these proceedings, it is trite 
and equitable to grant such relief, considering the financial status of 
9	
[1997] 2 SCR 875 : (1997) 4 SCC 226
10	
[2023] 5 SCR 165 : (2022) 15 SCC 754
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
767
Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian
the parties, their professional backgrounds, and the larger interest of 
justice. The financial independence of a party does not preclude the 
High Court from granting maintenance if it is necessary to secure 
dignity, social standing, and financial stability post-divorce, especially 
in cases where the marriage has subsisted for a long period.
37.	 It is undisputed that both, the appellant and the respondent are 
software engineers and were earning handsomely at the time of 
their marriage more than two decades ago. It is reasonable to infer 
that their respective incomes must have increased substantially over 
the years. However, considering the dynamics of their separation 
and the financial burdens the appellant may have borne during the 
protracted litigation, this Court finds it necessary to award her a 
lumpsum permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs 
only) to secure her financial independence and ensure that she 
can lead her life with dignity. As observed in Kiran Jyot Maini vs. 
Anish Pramod Patel,11 the concept of maintenance and alimony 
encompasses a right to sustenance that allows the spouse to live 
in a manner suited to her status and standard of living, and the aim 
is not to penalise the husband.
38.	 Further, this Court recognizes the responsibility of both parents 
toward the well-being, education, and future prospects of their child. 
Although the daughter may be of an age where she is
approaching 
independence, the financial support provided through this judgment 
will be instrumental in meeting her educational needs as well as 
expenses related to her future marriage. A sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- 
(Rupees Fifty lakhs only) is, therefore, awarded to the daughter for 
these purposes. This is in line with the principles of safeguarding 
the interests of children suffering under distress of such prolonged 
matrimonial disputes between the parents. Both parents share the 
duty of ensuring the daughter’s well-being and future security, and 
this financial provision will contribute to fulfilling that duty.
39.	 In granting permanent alimony and financial support, this Court is 
mindful of the principles laid down in Rajnesh vs. Neha.12 The factors 
to be considered while awarding maintenance or alimony include 
the duration of the marriage, the earning capacities of the parties, 
11	
[2024] 7 SCR 942 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1724
12	
[2020] 13 SCR 1093 : (2021) 2 SCC 324
768
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
their age and health, their standard of living, and their financial and 
non-financial contributions to the marriage. Here, the appellant has 
spent substantial time during the pendency of the litigation without the 
emotional or financial support of the respondent. Moreover, granting 
a lumpsum as permanent alimony ensures finality and reduces the 
scope for future litigation between the parties. While the appellant is 
presumably capable of earning, she has undoubtedly faced financial 
and emotional setbacks due to the prolonged litigation and separation. 
Similarly, the financial provision for the daughter ensures her welfare 
is not compromised due to the breakdown of the marital relationship 
between her parents.
40.	 For the reasons stated above, this Court directs the respondent 
husband to pay a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) to 
the appellant as permanent alimony and an additional Rs. 50,00,000/- 
(Rupees Fifty lakhs only) to their daughter for her education and 
future expenses, such as her marriage. These payments shall be 
made within four months from the date of this judgment.
41.	 Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, the decree of divorce is 
upheld, and the maintenance amount above granted is directed to 
be paid by the respondent to the appellant and their daughter within 
the time specified above.
42.	 There shall be no order(s) as to costs.
Result of the Case: Appeal dismissed.
†Headnotes
prepared by: Ankit Gyan