The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the wife against the September 2024 order of the Bombay High Court, which refused to expedite the execution proceedings for the recovery of long-pending maintenance arrears, arising from a protracted matrimonial dispute between the parties. The court also rejected the husband’s counterclaim of Rs 20 crore from the wife.

Calling it a “matrimonial battle of Mahabharata proportions,” the Supreme Court observed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and could not be salvaged. (Image enhanced using AI)

Decade-long matrimonial battle ends

The judgment brought closure to a prolonged matrimonial dispute arising from a marriage solemnised on January 20, 2010. The couple had been living separately since October 9, 2016, with two minor children in the custody of the wife.

Over nearly a decade, the dispute spiralled into multiple civil, criminal, and matrimonial proceedings across forums, including maintenance claims, custody battles, and allegations of harassment. The Supreme Court noted that the litigation had become excessively complex and adversarial, impacting not just the parties but also their children.

Calling it a “matrimonial battle of Mahabharata proportions,” the court observed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and could not be salvaged.

“There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the marriage is dead for all practical purposes and this is a supremely fit case warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, not only to annul the marriage between the parties but also to terminate all proceedings initiated and pending,” the Supreme Court said.

Maintenance orders, persistent non-compliance

The family court had earlier, on February 6, 2019, directed the husband to pay Rs 80,000 per month as interim maintenance, Rs 50,000 to the wife and Rs 15,000 each to the two children along with educational expenses.

However, the husband repeatedly defaulted on payments, leading to mounting arrears exceeding Rs 30 lakh at one stage. Despite multiple court directions, undertakings, and even threats of coercive action, the husband failed to comply, prompting execution proceedings and further litigation.

The Supreme Court noted that the husband’s conduct reflected a deliberate attempt to frustrate maintenance orders and delay proceedings.

The top court rejected the husband’s argument that the wife’s educational qualifications and earning capacity absolved him of financial responsibility.

The Supreme Court further found that the husband’s claim of financial incapacity was not credible and appeared to be a strategy to evade liability, noting that he had resigned from business positions and altered his professional profile.

Vexatious litigation, harassment

A striking aspect of the case was the husband’s extensive litigation strategy. The Supreme Court recorded that he had filed over 80 proceedings, not only against his wife and her family but also against her lawyers, including complaints before Bar Councils and criminal courts.

In earlier proceedings, the Supreme Court had even stayed several such cases, observing that the husband was misusing his legal knowledge to harass all those associated with the wife.

Meanwhile, the husband, opposing the grant of any alimony or the flat/accommodation to the wife, pressed his counter-claim seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 20 crore for the mental trauma and illegal detention suffered by him.

The court said that the husband has, at every stage, tried to multiply and complicate the proceedings by filing “innumerable applications and complaints” not only against the wife and her relatives but also
against her advocates.

“Most of these proceedings appear to be vindictive and vexatious. This clearly indicates a hostile, cantankerous and vindictive approach on the part of the respondent-husband. The cantankerous conduct of the respondent-husband was taken note of by this Court in the order dated 25th February, 2025,” the Supreme Court remarked.

The Supreme Court stated that this relentless, vindictive and oppressive conduct of the husband is the reason for the wife would have found it extremely difficult to continue her matrimonial relationship with him.

Supreme Court invokes Article 142

Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court passed sweeping directions to ensure “complete justice”.

• Marriage dissolved on grounds of irretrievable breakdown
• All pending civil and criminal cases quashed, including those against lawyers and relatives
• Custody of children granted to the wife, with visitation rights to the father
• Rs 5 crore compensation awarded as full settlement covering alimony, maintenance, and child support
• Husband directed to cooperate in passport-related formalities for the children

The Supreme Court clarified that the amount must be paid within one year, either in full or in installments.

Balancing rights of children, wife

The Supreme Court  emphasised that the welfare of the children remained paramount, particularly given the rising costs of education and living. It noted that one of the children is a Canadian citizen, requiring additional financial support for upbringing and documentation.

The wife, who had relocated and was working to support the children, was also acknowledged for prioritising their welfare, including stepping back from employment to focus on their education.

Closure to all proceedings

In a bid to end the cycle of litigation, the Supreme Court ordered that all proceedings between the parties, civil, criminal, and disciplinary stand closed. It also restrained the husband from initiating any further legal action against the wife, her family, or her lawyers.

The judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s willingness to step in decisively in prolonged matrimonial disputes and reiterates that financial responsibility toward one’s family cannot be avoided on technical or personal grounds.

Rajasthan High Court raises payout to Rs 40 lakh in matrimonial dispute

On April 1, the Rajasthan High Court has said that alimony must remain a tool of support, not a source of enrichment and enhanced permanent alimony from Rs 25 lakh to Rs 40 lakh in a long-standing matrimonial dispute.

A bench of Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit was hearing cross-appeals of the estranged husband and wife challenging the family court’s judgment which granted Rs 25 lakh as permanent alimony. The wife sought an enhancement and the husband argued that it was excessive.

“We are mindful that this Court must guard against converting alimony into a measure of enrichment rather than support,” the Rajasthan High Court said.

Curated For You

CBSE Class 10th Result 2026 LIVE Updates: List of official websites

Rajeev Khandelwal, 50, on why he never developed a taste for fast food: ‘Mummy khilaati thi sprouted dal, amla’

IPL 2026, CSK vs KKR Playing 11 Today Match: Will Varun Chakaravarthy, MS Dhoni return when Kolkata take on Chennai?