First Marriage Settlement Irrelevant for Second Marriage Alimony, Says Supreme Court

Case Title: Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2025)

Introduction:

In 2023, in the case of Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan, the Supreme Court held that it can dissolve a marriage if it is clearly beyond repair, even if one spouse disagrees with the decision. It also ruled that the six-month waiting period for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can be waived when there is no chance of reconciliation, to avoid unnecessary delay and reduce the mental stress of both parties.

Applying this principle in the case of Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., the Court granted a divorce to a couple married for less than two years but locked in litigation for the past eight. Exercising its powers under Article 142 to dissolve irretrievably broken marriages even without mutual consent, the Court ensured complete justice through a fair settlement. It rejected the wife’s alimony claim, noting that the husband was unemployed but had agreed to transfer his Mumbai flat, along with two parking spaces, to her as part of the settlement.

“Irretrievable breakdown of marriage” refers to a marriage that is unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably.

Supreme Court rules first marriage alimony irrelevant in second marriage disputes.

Background of the case :

The issues arose between the appellant and the respondent, which led to the complaint under Section 498-A IPC and criminal prosecution.  Respondent filed the Domestic Violence Complaint against the appellant and his parents.

In the same month, Appellant filed for the Mutual Divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The first motion in the family court was on September 14, 2022. But before the second motion respondent withdrew the consent. Subsequently, Appellant filed the petition in the Bombay High Court to quash the 498-A case, and the High Court refused. Hence, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

In the Petition, Appellant also seeks the dissolution of the marriage under Article 142 and offers Rs. 4 crores cash and a flat in a posh area in Mumbai worth Rs 4 crores. Although the wife demanded 12 crores as a permanent alimony, the husband refused for said amount and stated that he is currently unemployed and left his private bank job to look after his autistic child from his first marriage.

Supreme Court Insight on Relevance of Alimony in a Second Marriage:

The Supreme Court observed that the marriage between appellant and respondent that endured for one year and nine months before separation was irretrievably broken down of marriage and found that the alimony offered by the appellant is reasonable after looking into the condition of the child and his financial status. The court further said that the respondent employed and earned good in the field of information technology and can maintain herself and survive. The Supreme Court also quashed the case under Section 498-A IPC and rejected the wife's contention that the appellant's LinkedIn profile states his employment. 

After taking into consideration Supreme Court Held that:

“The appellant-husband asserts that the 2nd respondent-wife got a fair settlement as alimony from the earlier divorce, which, we find at the outset, is irrelevant in the adjudication of the present dispute. The alimony received by the respondent on the dissolution of her first marriage is not a relevant consideration"

Analysis of Relevant Clauses:

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955:

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for the “Divorce by mutual consent” under which both parties to the marriage must together file a petition to the district court. It can be done because the parties are living separately for one year or more, that if they are not able to live together and have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. 

71st Law Commission Report (1978) : 

The Law Commission of India, in its reports in 1978, dealt with the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 

Article 142(1) of the Constitution:

Article 142 Sub-section 1 confers the power on the Supreme Court to pass such a decree or make such an order which is necessary for doing ‘Complete Justice’ in any cause or matter. This decision to exercise such power must be “Based on considerations of fundamental general and specific public policy”. 

Conclusion of the Case:

The Supreme Court in this significant case held that it is not relevant to determine the alimony from the first marriage. The wife has an equal right to alimony in the second marriage, too. The court also found that the marriage between the couple is irretrievably broken. Further noticing the respondent's income, career. The court deemed the alimony offer of the husband. Also quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC, thereby providing full relief to the appellant.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now