Husband got divorce 3 times. Wife fought back. Then SC did this.

A husband won divorce three times. Each time, the wife got it reversed. On the third try, the High Court gave him divorce—and cut her alimony. The Supreme Court had one question.

Could a man who abandoned his wife days after their child was born, never paid a rupee for the boy's education, and had his own mother testify against him, walk away with a divorce and a reduced alimony bill? The answer, delivered by a two-judge bench on a quiet August morning in 2024, was a resounding no—but not quite the no the wife expected.

When the husband's own mother took the witness stand

The marriage happened in 1991. A son arrived in 1992. Then the husband left. Not a separation by mutual consent, not a slow drifting apart—he simply deserted his wife and infant child. For the next three decades, the wife raised the boy alone.

In 2002, the husband filed for divorce claiming cruelty (a ground under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows a spouse to seek divorce if the other has treated them with physical or mental cruelty). The Family Court in Bengaluru believed him. It granted divorce in August 2006.

The wife appealed. The High Court of Karnataka set aside the decree and sent the case back for a fresh hearing. The Family Court tried again—and granted divorce a second time in February 2011. Again the wife appealed. Again the High Court set it aside and remanded (sent the case back to the trial court for re-examination).

By the third attempt, the Family Court had seen enough. It granted divorce in February 2016, but this time it ordered the husband to pay Rs. 25 lakhs as permanent alimony (a one-time lump sum payment meant to support the wife after the marriage ends, under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act). The wife appealed once more. The High Court upheld the divorce—and reduced her alimony to Rs. 20 lakhs.

Here was the twist: the husband had never challenged the alimony amount. He had accepted the Rs. 25 lakhs order. Yet the High Court, on its own, decided the wife deserved less.

A procedural manoeuvre that backfired

The wife approached the Supreme Court. Her counsel argued that the entire process had been rigged against her. The husband had filed three separate divorce petitions over 14 years, each time starting fresh after the High Court reversed the previous decree. The wife had to defend herself three times, spending money she didn't have, while the husband kept litigating.

The husband's side argued that the marriage had been dead for over 30 years. The parties had lived apart since 1992. The son was now an adult. There was no point in keeping the legal bond alive.

The Supreme Court saw a deeper problem. The bench—Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan—noted that the husband had been the one guilty of cruelty. He had deserted his wife and child. He had never supported his son's education. Even the husband's own mother had sided with the wife during the proceedings. The Family Court and the High Court had, in effect, rewarded the husband's behaviour by granting him divorce while penalising the wife by reducing her alimony.

Why the Supreme Court changed the rules of the game

The Court held that the doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage (a judicially recognised ground for divorce when the marriage has completely collapsed, even if neither spouse is technically at fault) cannot be used to benefit the party who caused the breakdown. "Courts ought not to accord any premium to a party's own misdemeanors," the bench observed.

More critically, the Court found it impermissible for the High Court to reduce the alimony when the husband had not filed any appeal against the Rs. 25 lakhs award. An appellate court cannot, on its own motion, worsen the position of a party who has not challenged the order. The wife had come to court asking for the divorce to be set aside. She had not asked for the alimony to be reduced. Yet the High Court gave her less.

The Supreme Court sustained the divorce—the marriage had indeed been over for three decades—but it rewrote the financial terms entirely.

The conditions that make this judgment extraordinary

The Court directed the husband to pay an additional Rs. 10 lakhs to the wife, with 7% interest calculated from August 3, 2006—the date of the first divorce decree. That interest alone would add nearly Rs. 13 lakhs to the principal over 18 years.

It granted the wife and son exclusive possessory rights over the matrimonial home. The husband cannot sell it, cannot enter it, cannot disturb their residence.

It created a deemed first preferential charge (a legal claim that ranks above all other debts) over the husband's other immovable properties, to secure the son's maintenance and education arrears. If the husband fails to pay, the son can enforce this charge against those properties.

And then came the hammer: if the husband fails to comply with any of these conditions, the divorce decree itself becomes null and void. The marriage revives. The husband remains legally tied to the wife.

THE PLAY: When a spouse who caused the breakdown seeks divorce on irretrievable breakdown grounds, the court can grant it—but only on terms that fully compensate the innocent spouse, with non-compliance rendering the decree void.

The walk-off

The husband walked away with a divorce. But he also walked away with a debt that will follow him for the rest of his life—and the knowledge that one missed payment could bring the marriage back from the dead.