Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Grants Mutual Consent Divorce with Quantified Permanent Alimony

06 September 2024 5:13 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court of India granted a mutual consent divorce to a couple and quantified the amount of permanent alimony to be paid by the husband. The judgment was pronounced by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

The case, titled "Mansi Khatri vs. Gaurav Khatri," involved a Transfer Petition filed by the wife, seeking the transfer of the Divorce Petition filed by the husband from the Family Court in Indore, Madhya Pradesh to the Family Court in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court observed that the parties had experienced an irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. In the interest of rendering complete justice, the Court decided to exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. As a result, the Court closed all the cases filed by the parties against each other and granted a decree of mutual consent divorce.

One of the key issues in the case was the quantification of permanent alimony. The wife had claimed an amount of Rs. 70,00,000 (Rupees Seventy Lakhs), while the husband had offered Rs. 25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs). After considering the financial positions of the parties, the Supreme Court quantified the permanent alimony at Rs. 35,00,000 (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs). The husband was directed to pay this amount within six months from the date of the judgment.

The Court also quashed the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the petitioner's father, as well as the Maintenance Case filed by the petitioner in Lucknow. However, it was clarified that if the husband failed to pay the quantified permanent alimony within the stipulated time, the quashed FIR and Maintenance Case would be revived.

The judgment signifies the Court's recognition of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and aims to provide a fair resolution for both parties involved. The decision reflects the Court's commitment to upholding justice and maintaining the sanctity of marital relationships.

Date of Decision: May 19, 2023

MANSI KHATRI vs GAURAV KHATRI       

Latest Legal News