PARVIN KUMAR JAINversusANJU JAIN

                 [2024] 12 S.C.R. 543 : 2024 INSC 961

                            Parvin Kumar Jain
                                    v.
                                Anju Jain
                (Civil Appeal No(s). 14277-14278 of 2024)
                             10 December 2024
            [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       In the instant case, the parties were married and have a son born
       from their wedlock, however, the realtionship soured and they
       have been living separately for more than two decades. The main
       issue between the parties all these years, since separation, is the
       quantum of maintenance to be paid by the appellant-husband to
       the respondent-wife.

                                  Headnotes†
       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Quantum of maintenance –
       Permanent alimony – The respondent’s application for
       enhanced interim maintenance rested on her assertion
       of significant changes in circumstances since the last
       maintenance order, including the increased financial
       requirements of herself and the son:
       Held: It is evident from the records that the relationship between
       the parties appears to be strained from the beginning and only
       further soured over the years – Reconciliation proceedings during
       the pendency of the divorce petition also failed – The parties have
       been litigating maintenance proceedings for a prolonged period, and
       there appears to be no cogent reason to only deal with the issue
       of interim maintenance after twenty years of strained relationship
       and separation – These facts are admitted by the parties, and they
       have also mutually agreed for the dissolution of their marriage –
       Therefore, the marriage between the parties is dissolved while
       exercising the discretionary power u/Art. 142 of the Constitution of
       India – Now, the issue of maintenance pendente lite is infructuous
       with the dissolution of marriage, but the financial interest of
       the wife still needs to be protected through grant of permanent
       alimony – There cannot be strict guidelines or a fixed formula

* Author
544                                                           [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       for fixing the amount of permanent maintenance – The quantum
       of maintenance is subjective to each case and is dependent on
       various circumstances and factors – In the instant case, it is
       a matter of record and an admitted fact that the respondent is
       unemployed while the appellant is a well accomplished banker
       who has worked in multiple senior roles at various banks over the
       years – The appellant is currently working as the Chief Executive
       Officer of Vision Bank in Dubai and his estimated salary is about
       AED 50,000 per month which means that he is earning around
       Rs. 10 to 12 Lakhs per month – His DEMAT account details from
       2010 reveal investment of Rs. 5 crores – Further, he has three
       properties – For the respondent, considering the standard of living
       enjoyed by her during subsistence of the marriage, the prolonged
       period of separation, and the appellant’s financial capacity, a one-
       time settlement amount of Rs. 5 crores (Rupees five crores only),
       appears to be just, fair and reasonable amount for the respondent
       to be paid by the appellant towards settlement of all pending
       claims also – Since, the appellant herein has sufficient means to
       support his child, and thus provision should also be made for his
       maintenance and financial security as well – An amount of Rs. 1
       crore (Rupees one crore only) towards the maintenance and care
       of the son appears to be fair, which he can utilize for his higher
       education and as security till he becomes financially independent.
       [Paras 27, 31, 34, 36, 40, 41]

                                Case Law Cited
       Ajay Mohan and Ors. v. H.N, Rai and Ors. [2007] 13 SCR 298 :
       (2008) 2 SCC 507; Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [2020] 13 SCR
       1093 : (2021) 2 SCC 32; 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;
       Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri [1997] 2 SCR 875 : (1997) 4
       SCC 226; Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar [2011] 6 SCR
       118 : (2011) 5 SCC 234; Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir
       Parmar [2011] 9 SCR 371 : (2011) 13 SCC 112; Vishwanath
       Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal [2012] 7 SCR 607 : (2012)
       7 SCC 288 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                           545

                       Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain


                              List of Keywords
      Quantum of maintenance; Permanent alimony; Pendente lite
      maintenance; Divorce; One-time settlement amount; Maintenance
      and financial security; Increased financial requirements; Article
      142 of the Constitution.

                             Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 14277-14278
      of 2024
      From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2024 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in MATAPP (FC) Nos. 226 of 2018 and 120
      of 2019

                          Appearances for Parties
      Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv., Viresh B. Saharya, Ujas Kumar,
      Ms. Tara Narula, Ms. Nitya Gupta, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Akshat Agarwal,
      Rishabh Mathur, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv., Ms. Anu Narula, Sarfaraz Ahmad, Ms. Harshita
      Sukhija, Nishank Tripathi, Ms. Palak Jain, Rishi Raj Sharma,
      Advs. for the Respondent.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

      Vikram Nath, J.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    The present appeals arise out of the impugned order dated 01.08.2024
      passed by the Delhi High Court in MAT. APP.(F.C.) 226/2018 & CM
      APPL. 36723/2018. CM APPL. 4245/2021. CM APPL. 51379/2022,
      CM APPL. 52044/2022 and MAT.APP. (F.C.) 120/2019. Vide the
      impugned order, the High Court dismissed MAT. APP. (F.C.) 226/2018
      filed by the Husband against the order of the Family Court, in an
      application for maintenance pendente lite under section 24 of the Hindu
      Marriage Act, 1955 1 along with all pending applications, with costs of


1    HMA
546                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). By the same common order,
       the MAT.APP. (F.C) 120/2019 filed by the Wife is allowed to the extent
       that the interim maintenance granted to the Wife under Section 24
       of the HMA is enhanced from Rs.1,15,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifteen
       thousand only) to Rs.1,45,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand
       only) per month from the date of filing of enhancement application.
3.     The parties were married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on
       13.12.1998 and have one son born from their wedlock on 28.05.2001.
       However, the marital relationship soured and the parties began
       living separately from January, 2004. Since the date of separation,
       the son has been residing with the respondent–wife. Subsequently,
       on 11.05.2004, the appellant–husband filed a petition under
       Section 13(1) (ia) of the HMA, before the Family Court seeking
       divorce on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of the divorce
       petition, the respondent, on 27.05.2004, filed an application under
       Section 24 of the HMA seeking pendente lite maintenance for
       herself and the son. This application was disposed of by the Family
       Court vide order dated 20.09.2004, directing the appellant to pay a
       cumulative sum of ₹18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) per
       month, comprising ₹15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the
       respondent and ₹3,000/- to the son.
4.     Both parties challenged the Family Court’s order through
       separate appeals before the High Court. Consequently, vide order
       dated 21.11.2005, the High Court enhanced the maintenance amount
       to ₹20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month, allocating
       ₹15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the respondent and
       ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the son. Subsequently,
       the respondent filed an application under Sections 24 and 26 of
       the HMA, seeking further enhancement of interim maintenance. In
       her application, she claimed an enhanced amount of ₹1,45,000/-
       (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand only) per month, contending
       that the appellant’s income had increased significantly, exceeding
       ₹4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) per month, inclusive of salary,
       perks, allowances, and bonuses. She further argued that the financial
       needs of both, her and the son, had increased manifold since the
       prior determination of maintenance.
5.     During the pendency of the application, the appellant, in July 2015,
       voluntarily increased the interim maintenance to ₹65,000/- (Rupees
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        547

                     Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain


     sixty five thousand only) per month. He agreed to pay ₹50,000/-
     (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the respondent, effective from the date
     of filing the enhancement application on 28.02.2009, and ₹15,000/-
     (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the son, effective from July 2015.
     However, the appellant contended that following the dismissal of his
     divorce petition on 14.07.2016 upon being withdrawn by him, the
     Family Court had become functus officio, rendering it incapable of
     granting any further relief under Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA. He
     also submitted that the provisions of Section 26 of the HMA do not
     permit granting of maintenance to an adult male child.
6.   The respondent’s application for enhanced interim maintenance rested
     on her assertion of significant changes in circumstances since the
     last maintenance order, including the increased financial requirements
     of herself and the son. On the other hand, the appellant’s position
     focused on the legal implications of the withdrawal of his divorce
     petition and the applicability of Section 26 of the HMA concerning
     the maintenance of an adult male child.
7.   The Family Court, in its order dated 16.08.2018, allowed the
     respondent’s application for enhancement of maintenance and
     held that the relief in an application filed under Section 24 of the
     HMA can only be granted from the date of filing of the application,
     i.e., 28.02.2009, until the date the main divorce petition was dismissed
     as withdrawn, i.e., 14.07.2016. Proceedings under Section 26 of the
     HMA are independent of the main divorce proceedings, and relief under
     this section can be granted for a period beyond the dismissal of the
     main divorce petition. The Court therein observed that the appellant
     had adopted delaying tactics, which prevented the timely resolution of
     the respondent’s enhancement application. The appellant had been
     evasive in disclosing his actual income and assets, concealing his
     true financial status, including his movable and immovable properties.
     Therefore, he failed to discharge his moral and legal obligations
     to provide reasonable and just maintenance to his wife and son,
     commensurate with their social and economic standing.
8.   The Family Court held that the respondent and her son are entitled
     to enhanced maintenance considering the increased expenditures
     for a growing child and the respondent’s requirements aligned with
     her social status. Accordingly, the Family Court directed the appellant
     to pay the following amounts:
548                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       i.     ₹1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand only) per
              month as pendente lite maintenance to the wife and the son
              from 28.02.2009 to 14.07.2016, when the divorce petition was
              withdrawn.
       ii.    ₹35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) per month to the
              son from 15.07.2016, until he attains the age of 26 years or
              becomes financially independent, whichever is earlier. This
              amount shall be subject to a 10% increase every two years
              starting 28.05.2019.
       iii.   Litigation costs of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only).
9.     Both the parties challenged the above order of the Family Court
       vide two separate appeals before the High Court. It is the judgment
       passed in these appeals by the High Court, which is challenged
       before us by the appellant.
10. The High Court considered whether the Family Court loses its
    jurisdiction to decide pending applications under Sections 24 and 26
    of the HMA, upon withdrawal of the main divorce petition. The
    appellant argued that the Family Court becomes functus officio upon
    such withdrawal, and therefore, proceedings for interim maintenance
    and child-related relief under Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA,
    respectively, could not be adjudicated. This contention was based
    on the assumption that the statutory jurisdiction under Sections 24
    and 26 of the HMA is ancillary to the divorce proceedings and cannot
    survive withdrawal of the main case. The High Court rejected this
    argument, holding that both provisions are independent in nature and
    continue to operate despite the withdrawal of the divorce petition. The
    High Court observed that the legislature’s intent behind Section 24
    of the HMA is to ensure that a financially dependent spouse is not
    left without resources during the pendency of matrimonial disputes,
    and this obligation cannot be unilaterally nullified by withdrawal of the
    petition. It emphasized that allowing withdrawal of the main petition
    to terminate Section 24 of the HMA proceedings would render the
    dependent spouse financially vulnerable and create a procedural
    loophole for evasion of legal obligations. The High Court concluded
    that interim maintenance proceedings have an independent existence
    and are not strictly ancillary to the main proceedings. It held that the
    Family Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate interim maintenance under
    Section 24 of the HMA extends until the date of withdrawal of the
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        549

                           Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain


     main petition, thereby ensuring that the dependent spouse’s financial
     security is not abruptly disrupted by procedural tactics.
11. With respect to Section 26 of the HMA, which pertains to custody,
    maintenance, and education of minor children, the High Court provided
    a detailed analysis of the statutory language and intention. It held
    that the provision explicitly permits Courts to make orders “from time
    to time,” granting or modifying reliefs related to children, irrespective
    of the pendency or withdrawal of the main matrimonial proceedings.
    The High Court reasoned that matters concerning the welfare of
    children are not merely incidental to the matrimonial dispute but
    are of paramount and enduring importance. Recognizing that the
    interests of the children are paramount, the High Court clarified that
    the Family Court retains jurisdiction under Section 26 of the HMA
    even after withdrawal of the main petition, ensuring that children’s
    needs are addressed in an ongoing and dynamic manner.
12. The High Court also dismissed the appellant’s appeal placing reliance
    on the this Court’s decision in Ajay Mohan and Ors. v. H.N, Rai
    and Ors.,2 observing that the judgment was delivered in a different
    context and was not applicable to matrimonial proceedings under
    the HMA. It noted that this Court in Ajay Mohan (Supra), did not
    address the specific statutory framework or the unique considerations
    governing Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA. Reaffirming its position,
    the High Court underscored that the provisions under Sections 24
    and 26 of the HMA serve distinct and independent purposes—one
    ensuring financial support for the dependent spouse and the other
    protecting the welfare of minor children. It concluded that the Family
    Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate these matters persists independent
    of the status of the primary matrimonial dispute, thereby reinforcing
    the legislative objective of ensuring fairness and equity in matrimonial
    proceedings.
13. The High Court, while deciding the correctness of interim maintenance
    provided by the Family Court, heavily relied on the judgment of
    this Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another .3 This Court, in this
    judgment laid down the principles to ensure equitable determination
    of financial support for the wife and dependent child. It reiterated that


2   [2007] 13 SCR 298 : (2008) 2 SCC 507
3   [2020] 13 SCR 1093 : (2021) 2 SCC 32
550                                                         [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       maintenance should be determined after considering the status and
       lifestyle of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and children,
       the wife’s educational qualifications, professional skills, and earning
       capacity, as well as the appellant’s financial standing and obligations.
       It must also address the rising cost of living and inflation to ensure
       a standard of living that is proportionate to the appellant’s financial
       capacity and consistent with the standard of living the wife and
       children were accustomed to prior to separation. This Court highlighted
       that a husband cannot evade his duty of disclosure by concealing
       assets, as financial transparency is critical to the fair adjudication
       of maintenance claims.
14. In this case, the High Court observed that the appellant’s income,
    primarily from employment and investments, demonstrated his ability
    to provide for the wife and child’s maintenance adequately. The
    evidence revealed that the appellant earned over ₹4,00,000 (Rupees
    four lakhs only) per month between 2007 and 2016. Although he
    claimed higher living expenses due to his residence in Mauritius,
    the High Court found his arguments to be unsubstantiated, as his
    financial resources allowed him to meet maintenance obligations
    without undue hardship. The High Court further noted several
    instances of the appellant’s deliberate attempts to mislead the judicial
    process. He withheld critical financial documents and selectively
    disclosed information to conceal the full extent of his wealth. The
    inquiry into the statutory forms of the appellant revealed that he
    had investments in mutual funds valued at ₹5.10 crores as early as
    2009-2010, significant sums deposited in bank accounts, and other
    financial transactions that were not initially disclosed.
15. The High Court also identified false representations by the appellant
    regarding his property and income. He denied ownership of a property
    located at F-146, Richmond Park, Gurgaon, despite evidence of
    its ownership and rental income accruing to him. Additionally, the
    appellant misrepresented his association with Prasham Consultants
    LLP, wherein he continued to receive financial benefits until his father
    replaced him in 2016. These findings demonstrated a pattern of
    deliberate suppression of material facts and assets by the appellant,
    aimed at minimizing his maintenance liability. Such conduct warranted
    judicial intervention to ensure justice and provide adequate financial
    support to the wife and child, reflecting principles of fairness,
    transparency, and equity. Consequently, the High Court directed the
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        551

                      Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain


     appellant to pay interim maintenance that adequately addressed the
     needs of the wife and child, proportionate to his financial capacity and
     consistent with the obligations of a responsible spouse and parent.
16. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal
    challenging the order of interim maintenance granted by the Family
    Court, and, while allowing the respondent’s appeal, granted the
    following relief:
     i.     MAT.APP. (F.C) 120/2019 filed by the wife is allowed to the
            extent that the interim maintenance granted to the wife under
            Section 24 of the HMA is enhanced from Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees
            one lakh fifteen thousand only) to Rs. 1,45,000/- (Rupees on
            lakh forty five thousand only) per month from the date of filing
            of enhancement application i.e. 28.02.2009 till the date of
            withdrawal of divorce petition by the appellant i.e. 14.07.2016.
     ii.    All amounts paid by the appellant to the wife and the son till
            date shall be duly adjusted.
     iii.   The appellant shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate
            of 12% per annum towards the shortfall in the maintenance
            amount for the concerned period. The interest shall be calculated
            on the amount of deficit from the time it became due in a
            particular month and till the time it is paid.
     iv.    Based on the aforesaid, the arrears of maintenance to both the
            wife and the son, along with the interest, shall be paid within a
            period of eight (8) weeks from today.
17. The appellant is before us challenging the above judgment of the
    High Court on the grounds that the respondent has played a fraud
    on the Courts by concealing material/relevant documents and by
    filing false affidavits in support of her enhancement application,
    and that the son could not be granted maintenance till the age of
    twenty-six years as per the law. The interest @ 12% per annum in
    punitive in nature even though he had never defaulted in payment
    of interim maintenance.
18. We heard the parties in camera to discuss the possibility of an
    amicable solution but during the proceedings both the parties
    submitted that they are willing to have the marriage annulled by mutual
    consent as there remains no possibility of a reunion between them.
552                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


19. During the interaction before this Court, we found both the parties
    to be fair and reasonable in their approach, demeanor and conduct.
    They have shown an honest intention to amicably settle their disputes
    instead of maligning each other and unnecessarily delaying the
    proceedings.
20. Learned senior counsels for the respective parties have made their
    submissions at length. The parties have also filed their affidavits of
    assets as directed by this Court.
21. Before we proceed further, it is relevant to note that the parties stayed
    together only for around five years of the marriage, and even though
    they have a son out of the wedlock, they have been staying separately
    for almost over two decades now. They have made multiple serious
    allegations against each other and have been conducting litigations.
    They have no intention of reconciling, their marriage exists only for
    namesake, and there has been no cohabitation between the parties
    since 2004. Though the petition for dissolution of marriage has been
    withdrawn by the appellant, the interim maintenance proceedings
    have been going on between the parties since 2004.
22. The admitted long-standing separation, nature of differences,
    prolonged litigations pending adjudication, and the unwillingness of the
    parties to reconcile, are evidence enough to show that the marriage
    between the parties has completely broken down irretrievably.
23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in its judgment in the case of
    Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan ,4 laid down that it has the
    discretionary power to dissolve a marriage which in its opinion and
    on the evidence has broken down irretrievably. The Court is required
    to exercise this discretion cautiously while analyzing the facts and
    evidence of each case. In order to arrive at the decision regarding
    whether the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Court needs
    to factually examine and firmly establish the same, after careful
    consideration.
24. In Shilpa Sailesh (Supra), this Court further laid down the factors to
    be considered for such examination, and the same were reiterated
    in the case of Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel.5 This Court


4   [2023] 5 SCR 165 : (2022) 15 SCC 754
5   [2024] 7 SCR 942 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1724
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       553

                           Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain


     in both these judgments opined that the factors to be examined
     include the period of cohabitation between the parties, the period of
     separation, the attempts made for reconciliation, nature and gravity of
     allegations made between the parties, and such other similar factors.
25. This Court in plethora of judgments, such as Shilpa Sailesh (Supra)
    and Kiran Jyot Maini (Supra), Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri 6
    and Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar ,7 has laid down the
    clear position that a marriage can be dissolved by this Court on the
    ground of irretrievable breakdown when the relationship is so strained
    that the marriage has succumbed to the long standing differences
    between the parties and it has become impossible to save such a
    relationship. When the Court is convinced that there is no scope
    for the marriage to survive and no useful purpose, emotional or
    practical, would be served by continuing the soured relationship, and
    it finds that the marriage is completely dead, then it can exercise
    its inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to
    dissolve the marriage.
26. In the present case, even though the parties cohabited for about
    five to six years after marriage, but they have been living separately
    for more than two decades now. From the material on record,
    it also appears that even during the period of cohabitation the
    relationship between the parties was strained. The parties have
    made multiple serious allegations against each other. The appellant
    has contended that the respondent was short-tempered, hostile and
    behaved inappropriately with him and his parents, which led him into
    depression. The respondent has alleged that the appellant’s family
    was indifferent towards her from the beginning, they had created
    an uncomfortable environment for her, and the appellant showed
    no concern or care towards her. She further alleged that in the five
    years of cohabitation, the appellant was hostile towards her, she
    was treated like a domestic help, was never taken care of, and she
    was never treated as a wife by him. She finally left her matrimonial
    house fearing threat to her life, after hearing conversations between
    the appellant and his mother.



6   [1997] 2 SCR 875 : (1997) 4 SCC 226
7   [2011] 6 SCR 118 : (2011) 5 SCC 234
554                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


27. It is evident that the relationship between the parties appears to be
    strained from the beginning and only further soured over the years.
    Reconciliation proceedings during the pendency of the divorce
    petition also failed. The parties have been litigating maintenance
    proceedings for a prolonged period, and there appears to be no
    cogent reason to only deal with the issue of interim maintenance
    after twenty years of strained relationship and separation. These facts
    are admitted by the parties before us, and they have also mutually
    agreed for the dissolution of their marriage. Therefore, we believe
    that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved by this
    Court while exercising the discretionary power under Article 142 of
    the Constitution of India.
28. Thus, considering the facts of this case, all the material on record,
    submissions of the parties and analyzing the same in light of the
    factors stated above, the marriage between the appellant and the
    respondent is ordered to be dissolved.
29. The main issue between the parties all these years, since separation,
    is the quantum of maintenance to be paid by the appellant to the
    respondent. The issue of maintenance pendente lite is now infructuous
    with the dissolution of marriage, but the financial interest of the wife
    still needs to be protected through grant of permanent alimony. The
    learned senior counsels for the parties have made submissions at
    length regarding the financial condition of both the parties. In order
    to establish the correct financial position of both the parties, they
    have filed their respective affidavits of income and assets as ordered
    by this Court.
30. Before going into the details of the financial position of the parties,
    it is imperative that we highlight the position of law with regard to
    determination of permanent alimony. This Court, in a catena of
    judgments, has laid down the factors that needs to be considered
    in order to arrive at a just, fair and reasonable amount of permanent
    alimony.
31. There cannot be strict guidelines or a fixed formula for fixing the
    amount of permanent maintenance. The quantum of maintenance is
    subjective to each case and is dependent on various circumstances
    and factors. The Court needs to look into factors such as income of
    both the parties; conduct during the subsistence of marriage; their
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                      555

                           Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain


     individual social and financial status; personal expenses of each
     of the parties; their individual capacities and duties to maintain
     their dependents; the quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the
     subsistence of the marriage; and such other similar factors. This
     position was laid down by this Court in Vinny Paramvir Parmar v.
     Paramvir Parmar,8 and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath
     Agrawal.9
32. This Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra), provided a
    comprehensive criterion and a list of factors to be looked into while
    deciding the question of permanent alimony. This judgment lays
    down an elaborate and comprehensive framework necessary for
    deciding the amount of maintenance in all matrimonial proceedings,
    with specific emphasis on permanent alimony. The same has been
    reiterated by this Court in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel
    (Supra). The primary objective of granting permanent alimony is to
    ensure that the dependent spouse is not left without any support and
    means after the dissolution of the marriage. It aims at protecting the
    interests of the dependent spouse and does not provide for penalizing
    the other spouse in the process. The Court in these two judgments
    laid down the following factors to be looked into:
     i.     Status of the parties, social and financial.
     ii.    Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children.
     iii.   Parties’ individual qualifications and employment statuses.
     iv.    Independent income or assets owned by the applicant.
     v.     Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home.
     vi.    Any employment sacrifices made for the family responsibilities.
     vii.   Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
     viii. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance
           obligations, and liabilities.
     These are only guidelines and not a straitjacket rubric. These among
     such other similar factors become relevant.


8   [2011] 9 SCR 371 : (2011) 13 SCC 112
9   [2012] 7 SCR 607 : (2012) 7 SCC 288
556                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


33. This Court in Kiran Jyot Maini (Supra), while discussing the
    husband’s obligation to maintain the wife and the importance of his
    financial capacity in deciding the quantum, observed that:
          “26. Furthermore, the financial capacity of the husband
          is a critical factor in determining permanent alimony.
          The Court shall examine the husband›s actual income,
          reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and any
          dependents he is legally obligated to support. His liabilities
          and financial commitments are also to be considered to
          ensure a balanced and fair maintenance award. The court
          must consider the husband’s standard of living and the
          impact of inflation and high living costs. Even if the husband
          claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn,
          given his education and qualifications, is to be taken into
          account. The courts shall ensure that the relief granted is
          fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living
          to which the aggrieved party was accustomed. The court’s
          approach should be to balance all relevant factors to avoid
          maintenance amounts that are either excessively high or
          unduly low, ensuring that the dependent spouse can live
          with reasonable comfort post-separation.”
34. In the present case, it is a matter of record and an admitted fact
    that the respondent is unemployed while the appellant is a well
    accomplished banker who has worked in multiple senior roles at
    various banks over the years. We have perused the records of
    finances produced before us. Even though the records of the DEMAT
    accounts and the employment letters produced by the appellant are
    almost ten years ago or earlier, his financial position can be suitably
    ascertained from them.
35. It is admitted on record that the respondent is a home maker and
    has not been working in all these years, the son lives with her, who
    has now completed his B. Tech. course, and they reside in a house
    owned by the respondent’s mother. The appellant has paid for the
    son’s education as well as paid the interim maintenance as ordered
    by the Family Court. The son is now major and has also completed
    his graduation.
36. The appellant is currently working as the Chief Executive Officer of
    Vision Bank in Dubai and his estimated salary is about AED 50,000
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       557

                     Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain


     per month which means that he is earning around Rs. 10 to 12
     Lakhs per month. Though he has filed details of his DEMAT accounts
     from 2010, it is revealed that he had investments of around Rs.5 crores
     at that time. Further, he has three properties worth approximately
     Rs.2 crores, Rs.5 crores and Rs.10 crores, respectively.
37. During the period of cohabitation, the parties were initially residing
    in Mumbai when the appellant was working as a Foreign Exchange
    Executive with Global Trust Bank and subsequently in Chennai when
    the appellant changed his job. The appellant has worked at multiple
    positions in prestigious Banks and stayed in metropolitan cities with
    the respondent during the subsistence of the marriage.
38. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 23.09.2024, the appellant
    has also paid Rs. 72 Lakhs as arrears of maintenance in addition
    to the maintenance already paid by him.
39. It is not disputed that the appellant has the legal obligation as well
    as the financial capacity to maintain the respondent after dissolution
    of the marriage. As held by us in Kiran Jyot Maine (Supra), it is
    also necessary to ensure that the amount of permanent alimony
    should not penalize the husband but should be made with the aim
    of ensuring a decent standard of living for the wife.
40. Considering the material on record, the totality of the circumstances
    and the facts of this case, a one-time settlement amount with
    provision for the respondent as well as the son, would be a fair
    arrangement. For the respondent, considering the standard of living
    enjoyed by her during subsistence of the marriage, the prolonged
    period of separation, and the appellant’s financial capacity, a one-
    time settlement amount of Rs. 5 crores (Rupees five crores only),
    appears to be just, fair and reasonable amount for the respondent to
    be paid by the appellant towards settlement of all pending claims also.
41. It is also equitable and only obligatory for a father to provide for his
    children, especially when they have the means and the capacity
    to do the same. Even though the son is now major and has just
    finished his engineering degree, the High Court has rightly observed
    that it is only after completion of a college/ university degree and
    in some cases, completing a post-graduation/ professional degree,
    would the child be able to secure employment. In fact, it can safely
    be concluded that, in today’s competitive world, gainful employment
558                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


       may be feasible only after the child has pursued education beyond
       18 years of age. Mere completion of his engineering degree does
       not guarantee a gainful employment, in these competitive times. The
       appellant herein has sufficient means to support his child, and thus
       provision should also be made for his maintenance and financial
       security as well. An amount of Rs. 1 crore (Rupees one crore only)
       towards the maintenance and care of the son appears to be fair,
       which he can utilize for his higher education and as security till he
       becomes financially independent.
42. Therefore, we fix the above mentioned amount as one-time settlement
    amount to be paid by the appellant to the respondent and his son
    within a period of four months from the date of this judgment.
43. Consequently, the appeals are disposed of with the above observations
    and directions to the parties. Accordingly, decree of divorce be granted
    in exercise of this Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution
    of India. Further, the appellant shall pay the amount provided above
    towards permanent alimony to the respondent and his son within the
    time stipulated above. The Registry to draw a decree accordingly.

       Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan