Introduction
In Amutha v. AR Subramanian[i], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has re-navigated and emphasized jurisprudence pertaining to matrimonial laws and the grounds for granting divorce. With a standard factual background and a substantial load of allegations and counter-allegations, this case stands out due to the (unwarranted) monetary relief granted by the Supreme Court. In the scenario before the Supreme Court, wherein beneficial legislation was (admittedly) being butchered to pursue one’s vile interest, the case did not set the right precedent, in the author’s view.
Brief facts
Mr. AR Subramanian, the husband (‘Respondent’) and Ms. Amutha, the wife (‘Petitioner’), collectively referred to as the ‘Parties,’ were married in 2002. At the said time, the Respondent was a software engineer. After marriage, the Parties moved to Chandigarh, wherein the Respondent secured employment at the same company as the Petitioner worked.
The Petitioner conceived, and consequentially, she moved to her parents’ house to give birth to the child. However, after the child was born, the Petitioner refused to return to her matrimonial home.
In the given scenario, the Respondent felt compelled to initiate legal action. He issued legal notice for a reunion, in reply to which the Petitioner levied allegations against him. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of the application, attempts at reconciliation through a panchayat were unsuccessful.
While the aforementioned application was pending, the Petitioner agreed to move back to her matrimonial home, and the Parties moved to Bengaluru. However, during the said time, the Respondent alleged that the Petitioner treated him with cruelty. During the said time, the restitution application was dismissed by default.
Allegedly, the Petitioner yet again left her matrimonial home without informing the Respondent. Upon having been deserted by the Petitioner yet again, coupled with her alleged cruel antics, the Respondent filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
The Petitioner denied the allegations levied by the Respondent. She filed a counter-application seeking restitution of conjugal rights and alleged that the Respondent had never tried to bring her back to her matrimonial home.
The Trial Court dismissed the Respondent’s divorce petition as the Respondent had failed to establish that the Petitioner’s conduct amounted to mental cruelty.
Upon appeal, the High Court, while dissolving the marriage between the Parties, observed that the filing of baseless and false FIRs and continued separation for almost 15 years amounted to mental cruelty and is also indicative of the fact that the marriage between the Parties has broken down irretrievably. Thus, after extensively analysing the jurisprudence surrounding the present matter, the High Court observed that the Petitioner’s act of leaving the matrimonial home without a cause and her lack of interest/effort to reconcile amounted to both cruelty and desertion.
Aggrieved by the passing of the aforementioned order, the Petitioner filed the present appeal.
Held
The Supreme Court upheld the decision passed by the High Court and reiterated the nuances pertaining to the grant of divorce, irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and cruelty to observe as follows:-
The behaviour of the Petitioner, which included filing false causes and voluntarily deserting the matrimonial home, amounted to cruelty. The incidents which the Petitioner indulged in were not isolated instances of cruelty but depicted a pattern which the Respondent ought not to live with for the entirety of his life.
Considering that the Parties had already been living separately for nearly 15 years now, the non-viability of the said marriage was a fair conclusion to draw, and going by established jurisprudence, prolonged separation, coupled with a couple’s irreconcilability are grounds on which matrimonial disputes ought to be decided. Further, in the present case, even though the Petitioner had filed an application seeking restitution of conjugal rights, she had lacked the genuine intent to resume and/or repair the relationship, and in such a scenario, prolonging a dead marriage would only aggravate the agony of the Parties[ii].
However, even though the Petitioner had not sought any monetary relief in the present instance, the Court awarded permanent alimony to the Petitioner and the daughter to ensure that they live a dignified and respectful life commensurate to the Petitioner’s standard of living[iii].
Our Analysis
A reiteration of established jurisprudence, the present case again emphasized that forcing parties to continue living in broken matrimony only tends to prolong their misery. However, what grabs our attention in the present matter is the (unwarranted) grant of maintenance.
In our opinion, the precedence set by the present case would have a far-reaching economic impact, as compared to a social one, considering that the Court has, while arguably exceeding its jurisdiction, awarded alimony in favour of the Petitioner even when the same was not prayed for.
In our opinion, an unprecedented and unwarranted relief will possibly have an everlasting impact, especially in the present legal set-up, wherein it has almost become a norm to misuse beneficial provisions to obtain undue financial benefit.
The Supreme Court has gone up and beyond to consider the financial hardships that the Petitioner might have faced during the pendency of the suit, but in the author’s humble opinion, the Court has conveniently (and in a rather tardy manner) ignored the hardships that the Respondent might have faced due to the frivolous cases filed by the Petitioner and the emotional drain caused due to the case(s) and her alleged act of deserting him.
In the facts of the present case, wherein admittedly, the Court has observed that the Petitioner filed frivolous cases against the Respondent, deserted him for no apparent cause or reason, treated him with cruelty, made false allegations, and also strategically filed applications to prolong proceedings, the Court proceeded to grant unsought monetary relief to the Petitioner.
Such relief might be detrimental, considering that both Parties have similar financial and educational backgrounds and admittedly have similar earnings. In such a scenario, extending additional monetary favours to the defaulting party is against the spirit of law and absolutely uncalled for.
Further, in the absence of an income affidavit having been filed by either of the Parties, awarding such a high quantum of maintenance towards the Petitioner and the daughter completely contradicts the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha[iv], which, after considering the rampant and obnoxious alimony demand, the system of filing income affidavits was introduced. Alimony was granted/denied on the basis of the disclosures made in such document.
End Notes
[i] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3822 dated 19.12.2023.
[ii] Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri, 1997(4) SCC 226.
[iii] Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1724.
[iv] Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021)2 SCC 324.
Authored by Anshi Bhatia, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.