Supreme Court Grants ₹12 Crore Alimony in High-Stakes Matrimonial Dispute

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgement on December 19, 2024, in the case of Rinku Baheti v Sandesh Sharda, addressing issues such as irretrievable breakdown of marriage, transfer petitions, and the equitable use of Article 142 powers. The verdict, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal, sheds light on the complexities of matrimonial disputes and the misuse of legal provisions.

Case Overview: Rinku Baheti v Sandesh Sharda

The petitioner, Rinku Baheti, and respondent, Sandesh Sharda, were married on July 31, 2021, in Pune. Both were entering their second marriage. Discord arose soon after the wedding, primarily over the husband’s responsibilities toward his children from a previous marriage, his ex-wife, and his ailing father. The marriage lasted only a few months and was marked by allegations, criminal complaints, and multiple legal proceedings.

The husband filed three divorce petitions, with the first two either withdrawn or dismissed. The third petition, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (cruelty), became the focus of a transfer petition filed by the wife. Simultaneously, the wife lodged multiple criminal complaints against the husband and his family under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 498A (cruelty), 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), and the Information Technology Act.

Additionally, the wife sought the transfer of the divorce case from Bhopal to Pune, citing convenience and safety, and demanded ₹500 crore as permanent alimony. In contrast, the husband argued for the dissolution of the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing an irretrievable breakdown of their relationship.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Verdict in Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

The Court emphasised the significance of Article 142, which grants it extraordinary powers to provide complete justice. It noted that when a marriage is irreparably broken and reconciliation is not possible, forcing the parties to stay married would only lead to further hardship.

Drawing on the landmark judgement in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, which clarified the scope of Article 142 in matrimonial disputes, the Court dissolved the marriage. The Bench underlined its role as an equitable arbiter, balancing justice with practicality.

While the wife’s demand for ₹500 crore in alimony was deemed excessive, the Court directed the husband to pay ₹12 crore as permanent alimony. The judgement reflects the Court’s approach to ensuring fairness in marital disputes while cautioning against the misuse of Section 498A, a provision meant to protect women from cruelty.

Key Details of the Case

• Case Title: Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda
• Citation: 2024 INSC 1014
• Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal

This verdict underscores the importance of balancing justice, equity, and pragmatism in resolving complex matrimonial disputes.