Full Text
Translation output
2025 INSC 513
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 2140 of 2022)
R. ANNAMALAI ..... APPELLANT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 2140 of 2022)
R. ANNAMALAI ..... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
LALITHA SUBANAM ..... RESPONDENT(S)
Leave granted.
The appellant, R. Annamalai, and the respondent, Lalitha
Subanam, got married on 14.02.2000. The sister of the appellant, R.
Annamalai, had gotten married to the brother of the respondent, Lalitha Subanam, on the same day.
It appears that, for several reasons the respondent, Lalitha
Subanam, started residing separately in the year 2006. Litigation also commenced
Leave granted.
The appellant, R. Annamalai, and the respondent, Lalitha
Subanam, got married on 14.02.2000. The sister of the appellant, R.
Annamalai, had gotten married to the brother of the respondent, Lalitha Subanam, on the same day.
It appears that, for several reasons the respondent, Lalitha
Subanam, started residing separately in the year 2006. Litigation also commenced
WITH
the appellant, R. Annamalai, filing a petition under
Section 9 in 2006 and, thereafter, under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. These petitions were subsequently withdrawn.
It also appears that disputes had arisen between the sister of the appellant, R. Annamalai, and the brother of the respondent, Lalitha Subanam, which led to litigation between them. However, now we are informed that both of them are living together.
The appellant, R. Annamalai, and the respondent, Lalitha
Section 9 in 2006 and, thereafter, under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. These petitions were subsequently withdrawn.
It also appears that disputes had arisen between the sister of the appellant, R. Annamalai, and the brother of the respondent, Lalitha Subanam, which led to litigation between them. However, now we are informed that both of them are living together.
The appellant, R. Annamalai, and the respondent, Lalitha
Subanam, also lived together for some time after the initial breakup, but have again separated and are not residing
WITH
each other.
In 2012, the appellant, R. Annamalai, filed a petition for divorce, being H.M.O.P. No. 361/2012, before the Family Court, Madurai. The Family Court passed a decree of divorce on 24.06.2015.
The respondent, Lalitha Subanam, preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the impugned
In 2012, the appellant, R. Annamalai, filed a petition for divorce, being H.M.O.P. No. 361/2012, before the Family Court, Madurai. The Family Court passed a decree of divorce on 24.06.2015.
The respondent, Lalitha Subanam, preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the impugned
ORDER
dated 01.04.2019, setting aside the decree of divorce.
During the pendency of the present appeal, several attempts were made at mediation to settle the matter but they were not successful.
It is apparent that the marriage between the appellant, R.
Annamalai, and the respondent, Lalitha Subanam, has irretrievably broken down. They do not have any emotional connect with each other.
In these circumstances, we exercise our jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct dissolution of the marriage between the appellant, R. Annamalai, and the respondent, Lalitha Subanam, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The appellant, R. Annamalai, agreed to pay an amount of 25,00,000/-
₹
(Rupees twenty five lakhs only) to the respondent, Lalitha Subanam.
The said amount will be deposited before the Family Court, Madurai, within 8 weeks from today. In case the amount is not deposited within the time specified, the appellant, R. Annamalai, shall pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum, compounded annually, from the date of this order till the date the payment is made.
The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
During the pendency of the present appeal, several attempts were made at mediation to settle the matter but they were not successful.
It is apparent that the marriage between the appellant, R.
Annamalai, and the respondent, Lalitha Subanam, has irretrievably broken down. They do not have any emotional connect with each other.
In these circumstances, we exercise our jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct dissolution of the marriage between the appellant, R. Annamalai, and the respondent, Lalitha Subanam, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The appellant, R. Annamalai, agreed to pay an amount of 25,00,000/-
₹
(Rupees twenty five lakhs only) to the respondent, Lalitha Subanam.
The said amount will be deposited before the Family Court, Madurai, within 8 weeks from today. In case the amount is not deposited within the time specified, the appellant, R. Annamalai, shall pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum, compounded annually, from the date of this order till the date the payment is made.
The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ................CJI.
(SANJIV KHANNA) ..................J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2025.
(SANJIV KHANNA) ..................J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2025.