||Black and White Digital News ||

||September 04 ,2024 ||

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India expressed deep concern over the “grossly injudicious” treatment of a woman embroiled in a decades-long legal battle against her estranged husband. The woman, married in 1991 and deserted shortly after the birth of their son in 1992, has been fighting for justice after a family court in Karnataka repeatedly granted her husband a decree of divorce, despite his failure to provide financial support for her or their child.

Legal Battle and Judicial Oversight:

The case, which has spanned nearly 30 years, highlights significant flaws in the judicial process. The woman challenged the divorce decrees multiple times, leading the Karnataka High Court to remand the case to the family court on each occasion. However, each time, the family court reaffirmed the divorce decree, prompting concerns about judicial insensitivity and potential bias.

The Supreme Court, in its recent ruling, criticized the family court for its “mechanical” and “insensitive” approach in repeatedly granting the divorce decree without adequately considering the husband’s failure to fulfill his financial obligations. The apex court noted that the woman had been subjected to extreme cruelty by her husband, who not only abandoned her and their child but also refused to contribute to their welfare.

Supreme Court’s Intervention:

Taking a strong stance, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan underscored the systemic failure in delivering justice to the woman. The court pointed out that the husband’s own mother, who had been residing with the woman and her son, supported the appellant’s case against her son, further highlighting the husband’s misdemeanors.

Acknowledging the long separation of the couple, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the divorce decree but imposed strict conditions. The court enhanced the alimony from Rs 20 lakh to Rs 30 lakh, with an additional directive that the woman and her son retain possession of the house they currently occupy, barring the husband from interfering with their peaceful occupation of the property.

Significant Legal Directives:

In a crucial move, the Supreme Court granted the couple’s son preferential ownership rights to any immovable property owned by his father, regardless of any potential transfer of title. This decision was made in recognition of the son’s indefeasible right to maintenance and education.

The court further warned the husband that failure to comply with the financial directives would automatically nullify the divorce decree. The man was ordered to pay the enhanced alimony within three months, with an annual interest of seven percent dating back to August 3, 2006, the date of the first divorce decree.

Conclusion and Implications:

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case serves as a stark reminder of the need for judicial sensitivity and fairness, particularly in cases involving vulnerable parties. By enhancing the alimony and ensuring the woman’s and her son’s right to their home, the court has provided much-needed relief and protection after years of legal struggle. This judgment also sends a strong message about the consequences of failing to uphold financial and parental responsibilities in matrimonial disputes, reinforcing the importance of justice and equity in family law.