AMUTHAversusA.R. SUBRAMANIAN

                [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