Divorce after 16 years? SC says Not without Strong Grounds, asks Husband to Continue Maintenance

Recently, in a pointed exchange reflecting the Court’s approach to matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court declined to grant divorce to a 54-year-old government employee seeking separation from his wife after years of estrangement, signalling that financial responsibility and realistic settlement remain central to such claims. The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta indicated that without a fair proposal for permanent alimony, relief would not be readily considered.

The case arose from a long-standing marital dispute where the husband sought dissolution of marriage, citing cruelty and incompatibility, despite the parties living apart for over 16 years. He challenged a High Court order that had earlier refused divorce. While the husband argued that continuing maintenance of ₹15,000 per month was burdensome given his salary, the wife opposed the plea and expressed willingness to resume cohabitation. The dispute also revealed that the alleged cruelty was largely based on the wife’s insistence on staying with her husband during his postings, while attempts at mediation had failed to resolve the conflict.

The Court remained unconvinced by the grounds urged for divorce and questioned the basis of cruelty, observing that the wife’s desire to live with her husband could not, by itself, justify dissolution. It also emphasised that the maintenance amount was not excessive in present times and pressed the husband to consider a reasonable one-time settlement if he wished to pursue divorce. The Bench stated, “₹15,000 is hardly anything these days… (Else) Shaanti se baitho, dete raho 15,000, khush raho,” making it clear that mere unwillingness to continue maintenance would not entitle him to relief.

The Court, however, granted time to explore a possible alimony arrangement and listed the matter for further hearing.

Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.