Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High 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