Short and Crisp Summary
The Supreme Court of India upheld the divorce between Lakshmeesha M.C. and Prabhavathi but imposed severe financial penalties on the husband. He must pay an additional ₹10 lakh on top of ₹20 lakh alimony, and the family home was given to the wife and son. If he fails to pay, the divorce will be canceled, forcing him back into the marriage. This ruling raises serious concerns about fairness in divorce settlements.
Brief Facts of the Case
- The couple married in 1991 but separated in 1992—over 30 years apart.
- The husband filed for divorce in 2002, citing cruelty.
- After multiple appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the divorce but imposed financial penalties.
- The wife was initially awarded ₹20 lakh alimony, but the Supreme Court increased it by ₹10 lakh.
- The family home was given entirely to the wife and son, with the husband losing all rights.
- If the husband fails to pay, the divorce will be reversed, keeping him legally married.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Article 142 of the Constitution – Supreme Court’s power to ensure justice.
- Section 498A IPC – Cruelty by husband or relatives.
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) – Property and maintenance rights for women.
- Divorce under Hindu Marriage Act – Legal grounds for dissolution of marriage.
The Supreme Court used Article 142 to secure the wife’s financial interests, despite 30 years of separation.
Arguments of Both Sides
Husband’s Arguments (Men’s Rights Perspective)
- Separated for 30+ years, yet still forced to pay alimony.
- Wife is financially stable but still getting ₹30 lakh total.
- Lost all rights over the family home, which was given to the wife and son.
- Failure to pay cancels the divorce, trapping him in the marriage.
Wife’s Arguments
- Husband deserted her and their child, so he must compensate them.
- Financial burden must remain on the husband.
- The home should stay with the wife and son for security.
Court’s Key Observations
- Men cannot escape financial responsibility after divorce.
- The wife fought legal battles for years, proving dependency.
- The husband must ensure his ex-wife’s comfort.
- Failure to pay will make the divorce void.
The court granted divorce but left the husband with huge financial obligations.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the divorce but made the husband pay ₹10 lakh more and lose all property rights. If he fails to comply, the divorce will be reversed, forcing him back into the marriage.
- Divorce doesn’t free men from financial burdens.
- Even after decades apart, men must still provide for their ex-wives.
- The law assumes men must always pay, even post-divorce.
Comments from the Author of this website
- Why should a man still pay after 30 years of separation?
- Why does an independent wife get lifelong financial support?
- Why does the husband lose his home while the wife gets full rights?
- Why should failing to pay cancel the divorce?
Final Thoughts
Divorce should mean freedom for both partners, but the legal system still treats men as lifelong providers. Until maintenance laws are made fair, men will continue to suffer financially even after divorce.
Read Complete Judgement Here