SONIA VIRK v. ROHIT WATTS
Upholding Divorce Decree and Enhancing Permanent Alimony Considering Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage and Financial Security of Wife and Child.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1390
Decision Date: 05-12-2025
List of Laws
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Family Law; Divorce; Permanent Alimony
Case Brief
- Facts: The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on December 6, 2008. The husband, a judicial officer, filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty. The Family Court dismissed the petition, but the High Court allowed the husband's appeal, granting a divorce and awarding Rs. 30,00,000 as permanent alimony to the wife. The wife appealed to the Supreme Court. The couple has been living separately since 2012.
- Procedural Posture: The case reached the Supreme Court via appeal by the wife against the High Court's judgment that granted a decree of divorce and awarded permanent alimony. The High Court had overturned the Family Court's decision that dismissed the husband's divorce petition.
- Issue: 1. Was the High Court correct in granting a decree of divorce? 2. Was the amount of permanent alimony awarded by the High Court adequate?
- Holding: 1. Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to grant a decree of divorce. 2. No, the Supreme Court enhanced the permanent alimony from Rs. 30,00,000 to Rs. 50,00,000.
- Reasoning: The Supreme Court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and continuing the marital tie would serve no purpose. The parties had been living separately for over thirteen years, and reconciliation efforts had failed. The Court also considered the husband's position as a judicial officer and his heightened obligation to provide financial security to his wife and daughter. The Court enhanced the alimony to ensure the wife's reasonable financial independence, considering her standard of living during the marriage and the daughter's future educational needs. The Court stated, "Continuing the marital tie would serve neither the spouses nor their child; rather, it would only prolong hostility and impede their ability to move forward with dignity."