In a hearing before the Supreme Court, a man seeking divorce after living separately from his wife for 16 years found little support from the Bench, which instead asked him to continue paying maintenance.
At the heart of the matter was a familiar legal dilemma – whether a long separation is enough to end a marriage, or if a chance at reconciliation still holds ground. While the husband argued that the relationship had broken down beyond repair, the wife said she was willing to return and live with him, placing both arguments before the court.
Court raises concern over maintenance, pushes status quo
The husband’s counsel told the court that the couple had been living apart for over a decade and a half, adding that his client was already paying ₹15,000 every month as maintenance. On that basis, he requested that the marriage be dissolved, pointing to ongoing differences and incompatibility.
The wife’s side pushed back, saying she remained open to resuming the marriage, challenging the claim that it had completely collapsed.
At this point, the Bench remarked, “keep your wife with you,” indicating that the door for reconciliation could not be shut so easily.
When the husband’s side reiterated that the long separation stemmed from “temperamental issues,” the court shifted focus to financial support, asking what amount could be offered as permanent alimony. It also observed that ₹15,000 per month was “hardly anything these days.”
Responding to this, the husband’s counsel said his client did not have the financial capacity to increase the amount. “I don’t have money. I have 65k salary, no pension. I am 54 years old,” he told the court.
The Bench then directed that the existing arrangement should continue, stating, “you continue to pay 15k.”
When the plea for divorce was pressed again, the court declined to grant it, telling the husband, “shaanti se baithe raho. Dete Raho 15k, khush raho.”