A Landmark Divorce and Alimony Settlement
Divorce cases often hinge on complex facts, evidentiary disputes, and sensitive personal histories. In a recently reported decision, the Supreme Court of India provided clarity on two critical aspects, confirming a divorce decree already upheld by lower courts, and determining a fair one-time alimony award. Here’s a breakdown of the saga of Sau. Jiya (appellant) versus Kuldeep (respondent).
Background of the Dispute
Marriage and Early Years
Jiya and Kuldeep wed on June 27, 2012, after a four-year courtship, and moved into a joint
family home in Nagpur. Their union, however, unravelled within two months no children
resulted from the marriage.
Family Court Proceedings
In 2014, Kuldeep filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty
and desertion. Jiya counter-filed for annulment, alleging fraud in marriage negotiations
aimed at extracting dowry. Her petition was dismissed on August 1, 2014, and she did not
appeal, nor did she return to cohabit.
Divorce Decree and Appeals
Kuldeep secured an ex-parte divorce decree on January 9, 2015, which Jiya successfully
challenged leading to a retrial. On July 31, 2017, the Family Court, after hearings and
evidence, granted divorce on grounds of mental cruelty. Jiya’s subsequent appeal to the
Bombay High Court was dismissed on April 25, 2018.
The Supreme Court’s Intervention
When the case reached the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. SLP (C) No. 24893 of 2018), the focus
had shifted:
1. Confirmation of Divorce
Both parties had since accepted that the marriage had irrevocably broken down. Kuldeep
had remarried in 2019, and the couple failed to settle despite mediation in 2024.
Consequently, the Court declined to revisit the cruelty findings, holding the divorce decree
suitably affirmed by the lower courts.
2. Alimony Determination
While divorce was no longer contested, Jiya sought a one-time lump-sum settlement. The
apex bench invoked the comprehensive framework laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and
reiterated in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (2024). Key factors include:
o Status and Standard of Living: Lifestyle during marriage vs. post-divorce needs
o Income and Earning Capacity: Self-sufficiency prospects of the wife and the
husband’s true financial position
o Liabilities and Dependents: Husband’s existing maintenance obligations and new
family obligations
o Sacrifices and Career Impact: Opportunities foregone by the wife for family
responsibilities
Unmasking the True Financial Picture
Kuldeep’s Affidavit
Declared monthly income of ₹16,612 as an operator, personal expenses of ₹24,000, plus
₹5,000 toward dependents (father, mother, brother, second wife). Claimed no property
assets.
Jiya’s Affidavit
Countered that Kuldeep earned ₹80,000/month from his gym business, ₹50,000 as an
electrician, plus ₹30,000 rental income totalling ₹1,30,000. Presented gym advertisements
and photos of tenanted premises. Also noted Jiya’s own salon business: income claimed at
₹2 lakhs monthly (though the Court found this figure inflated).
Finding Kuldeep’s disclosures intentionally understated, and recognizing his multiple income streams
and considering that there were no children to support the Supreme Court viewed a one-time
settlement as the most equitable route.
The Final Settlement
Balancing all factors standard of living, credibility of affidavits, lack of ongoing marital intent, and the
husband’s remarriage the Court awarded Jiya a one-time alimony of ₹10 lakhs, to be paid within
three months. This lumpsum was designed to:
Cover all pending and future claims by Jiya against Kuldeep
Prevent any undue financial hardship for either party post-divorce
Reflect a fair compromise without punitive excess
Why This Ruling Matters
1. Clarity on One-Time Settlements
It underscores the judiciary’s willingness to opt for lump-sum alimony when continuous
maintenance becomes impractical or contested.
2. Stringent Financial Disclosure
The decision warns against undervaluing assets courts will look beyond self-serving affidavits
to ascertain true financial capacity.
3. Framework Reinforced
Reaffirms the Rajnesh and Maini guidelines as the authoritative touchstones for
maintenance determinations.
The Supreme Court’s order in Sau. Jiya vs. Kuldeep neatly ties up a lengthy matrimonial dispute
confirming the divorce and ensuring a fair financial resolution. For family law practitioners and
litigants alike, it offers a practical blueprint: when marriage fails irretrievably, a balanced, evidence-
based approach to alimony can secure justice for both spouses.
References:
Supreme Court of India, Sau. Jiya vs. Kuldeep, Civil Appeal No. SLP (C) No. 24893 of 2018,
Judgment dated 31 January 2025