The Supreme Court has ended a marriage that had broken down long ago. The couple had been living separately for almost 15 years. Using its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court dissolved the marriage and ordered the husband to pay ₹1.25 crores as permanent alimony to the wife and their son, in five instalments.
Brief Facts of the Case
- Marriage between A. Ranjithkumar (husband) and E. Kavitha (wife) took place on 15.02.2009.
- The couple moved to the USA, and a son was born in 2010.
- In 2012, the husband filed for divorce citing cruelty and adultery.
- In 2016, the Family Court granted divorce on grounds of cruelty.
- In 2018, the High Court set aside this divorce.
- Meanwhile, the husband remarried in 2017.
- Mediation efforts failed, and the husband requested the Supreme Court to dissolve the marriage under Article 142.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce on grounds of cruelty, adultery, or desertion.
- Article 142, Constitution of India – Power of the Supreme Court to pass orders to do complete justice.
Arguments of Husband
- Marriage had been dead for 15 years, no chance of reunion.
- He had already remarried in 2017.
- Continuing the marriage only created legal complications.
Arguments of Wife
- Claimed she could not be blamed for her father’s behaviour.
- Stated that the husband had not provided financial support for her and the child.
- Demanded financial security.
Court’s Observation
- The couple had no relationship for nearly 15 years.
- The marriage had irretrievably broken down.
- There was no point in keeping them legally bound.
- To balance equity, a one-time settlement of ₹1.25 crores was ordered.
Conclusion of the Judgment
- The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142.
- Husband to pay ₹1.25 crores to wife and child in five quarterly instalments (between September 2025 and September 2026).
- If payment is not made, the order will be recalled, and any money already paid will be forfeited.
Comments from the author of this website
I cannot help but feel that once again, the financial order shows how unfairly men are treated in matrimonial disputes. For 15 long years, this marriage had no meaning — both lived separately, both chose their own paths, and even the husband had already remarried. Yet, when it finally came to ending this dead relationship, the entire financial weight was thrown only on his shoulders.
Why is it always assumed that the man must pay, no matter what? The wife, too, was equally part of the breakdown, yet there is no talk of her responsibility. For 15 years, she managed her life without him, but suddenly, at the time of divorce, she was treated as if she could not survive without a huge payout. This is not justice; this is a burden that men are forced to carry only because of outdated notions.
I see this pattern everywhere: when a marriage breaks up, the law looks only at the man’s pocket, not at the woman’s earning ability, education, or financial status. There is no check on whether she is capable of supporting herself — the assumption is simply that the man must keep paying. This attitude is one-sided and deeply unfair.
Such judgments discourage men from even approaching the courts, because no matter what the circumstances, the end result is often the same — the marriage ends, but the man ends up with a huge financial penalty. It feels less like equality and more like punishment for being a husband.
Final Thoughts
The Supreme Court was right in recognising that forcing a couple to stay married after 15 years of separation is meaningless. However, the way financial settlements are handled still needs serious rethinking. Marriage breakdowns should not become a one-way street where only men are held financially liable, regardless of circumstances. True justice would mean ensuring fairness for both sides — not just in ending the marriage, but also in sharing responsibility after it ends.
Read Complete Judgement Here