The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the judicial system was "grossly injudicious" to a woman who has fighting a protracted legal battle against a family court granting the decree of divorce to her estranged husband multiple times.
The history of the matrimonial dispute spans nearly three decades.
The woman, who got married in 1991, gave birth to a son a year later and was deserted by her husband, according to a news agency PTI report, which added that the man filed for divorce in a family court in Karnataka which not once but thrice granted the decree of divorce in his favour, disregarding the fact that he was not paying anything either to her or their minor child for maintenance.
The woman reportedly approached the Karnataka High Court against the grant of divorce. The High Court asked family court multiple times to decide and afresh the petitions of her husband, however, each time the man managed to get the divorce decree.
In the third instance, the high court approved the family court's decision granting divorce to the husband on payment of permanent alimony of Rs 20 lakh. The local court had awarded Rs 25 lakh to the woman.
The matrimonial dispute, in which the woman has not been getting sufficient money as alimony, caught the attention of a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, who deprecated the manner in which the family court kept on passing the decrees of divorce.
"On perusal of the record, it seems to us that the judicial system has been grossly injudicious to the appellant and her minor child, who has now attained majority. We say so for the reason that it is the respondent who subjected the appellant to extreme cruelty all these years, and never came forward to render any assistance for securing a better future for his own son or offered to pay even for his school education, the Supreme Court bench was quoted as saying by PTI.
"The respondent's own mother has been staying with her daughter-in-law/ appellant all these years and has come forward against him. The mechanical manner in which the family court kept on passing decrees of divorce against the appellant not only exhibit a lack of sensitivity, but also suggests a hidden prejudice against the appellant. The courts ought not to have accorded any premium to the respondent's own misdemeanors," the bench said.
The court, however, said it cannot be oblivious of the fact that the parties are living separately since 1992 and therefore sustained the decree of divorce granted by the family court conditionally.
Slamming the misdemeanours of the husband, the bench said the claim of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party solely responsible for "tearing down the marital relationship."
The apex court enhanced the alimony of Rs 20 lakh by Rs 10 lakh more but also ordered that the house currently occupied by the woman, her son, and her mother-in-law will remain with them and barred the man from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property.
"If the respondent owns any other immovable property, the son of the parties shall have preferential ownership rights in the same irrespective of any transfer of title by the respondent. This direction is necessitated for the reason that he (the couple's son) has an indefeasible and enforceable right to seek maintenance and adequate amount towards his school and higher education," the bench said.
Making the directions compulsorily enforceable, the Supreme Court warned the man that non-compliance would automatically render the decree of divorce "null and void".
The court asked the man to pay the alimony within three months with seven per cent annual interest since August 3, 2006, the day the first decree of divorce was passed.
