Supreme Court: In a long-drawn, bitter matrimonial strife, resulting into multiplicity of litigations instituted across various courts and forums, whereby the wife filed an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court’s order dismissing appellant-wife’s petition seeking expeditious disposal of execution proceedings for recovery of maintenance arrears, invoking Article 142, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ., quashed the 80+ vexatious and vindictive litigation including proceedings against wife, her relatives and even her advocates filed by the lawyer husband. The Court dissolved the marriage between the parties, granted custody of both children to the wife, with structured visitation rights to the father and awarded a consolidated sum of ₹5 crores to the wife towards permanent alimony, maintenance, child support, and litigation expenses, payable within one year. The Court further restrained the husband from initiating further litigation against the wife, her relatives, or her lawyers.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the parties were married on 20 January 2010 under Hindu rites and later registered under the Special Marriage Act. Two sons were born from the marriage and remained in the custody of the wife. Due to grave differences, the parties separated on 9 October 2016 and have since been living apart.
Following separation, the wife alleged that the respondent-husband completely abandoned his obligation to maintain her and the children. She initiated proceedings seeking protection of her residence in the matrimonial home and filed a divorce petition along with an application for interim maintenance. Simultaneously, the husband instituted separate proceedings for divorce and custody of the children.
Proceeding before Courts below
The Family Court, by order dated 7 January 2019, restrained the husband from disturbing the wife’s possession of the shared household unless alternative accommodation of similar standard was provided. Subsequently, by order dated 6 February 2019, interim maintenance was awarded at ₹80,000 per month (₹50,000 to the wife and ₹15,000 each to the children), along with educational expenses and litigation costs.
Despite these orders, the husband persistently defaulted in payment, compelling the wife to initiate execution proceedings. Meanwhile, the husband filed multiple applications, including perjury allegations against the wife, which were rejected by the Family Court for lack of expediency under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The husband repeatedly challenged orders before higher courts and gave undertakings to deposit arrears but failed to comply. The High Court eventually upheld the maintenance order, observing it to be just and reasonable. Despite this, non-compliance continued, leading the Family Court to pass coercive orders, including striking off the husband’s defence and dismissal of his petitions due to deliberate default.
Execution proceedings remained stalled for over 2 years due to absence of a Presiding Officer, prompting the wife to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous once a Presiding Officer resumed charge, declining to issue time-bound directions.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
The Court issued notice and explored the possibility of settlement, including divorce under Article 142. The husband was directed to disclose his financial status in accordance with Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
After serious concerns were raised regarding the husband’s conduct in filing numerous complaints not only against the wife but also against her advocates, the Court stayed the multiple proceedings across forums, observing that the husband was using his legal knowledge to harass and frustrate proceedings.
During the proceedings, partial payments were made, but substantial arrears remained, therefore, the Court also stayed all ongoing litigation between the parties to facilitate a comprehensive resolution.
Further, the husband filed a writ petition under Article 32 alleging violation of fundamental rights, which was dismissed with costs of ₹5 lakhs as frivolous and malicious.
Subsequently, both parties filed applications under Article 142 seeking dissolution of marriage along with extensive reliefs concerning alimony, custody, property, and quashing of proceedings.
Parties’ Contentions
The appellant contended that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, with no possibility of reconciliation after over 9 years of separation. She emphasised on the respondent’s abusive litigation strategy, filing more than 80 proceedings against her, her family, and even her lawyers. It was argued that the husband deliberately concealed his financial capacity and resigned from directorships to evade liability. Stress was laid on the welfare of the children, including educational needs and the requirement of financial security. The appellant sought dissolution of marriage, permanent alimony, transfer of the matrimonial home or alternative accommodation, and quashing of all proceedings.
The respondent opposed the reliefs, contenting that false criminal cases were filed against him and claimed reputational harm and wrongful incarceration. He disputed the wife’s financial claims, alleging suppression of her income and asserting that he had already paid substantial amounts. He sought custody of children, return of the flat to his father, and even compensation of ₹20 crores for mental trauma. While admitting breakdown of marriage, he resisted comprehensive settlement under Article 142.
Court’s Analysis
The Court observed that the dispute had degenerated into a “long-drawn, bitter matrimonial strife” marked by multiplicity of proceedings across forums. The Court found that the husband had adopted a vindictive and oppressive litigation strategy, targeting not only the wife but also her relatives and legal representatives.
The Court noted that such conduct clearly reflected a “hostile, cantankerous and vindictive approach”, making continuation of the marital relationship impossible. The Court opined that in the light of present circumstances, the marriage was dead for all practical purposes and the present case seems supremely fit case warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, not only to annul the marriage between the parties but also to terminate all proceedings initiated and pending inter se, including those against the relatives and legal counsels. The Court described the litigation as having “crossed all limits” and assumed the proportions of a “matrimonial battle of Mahabharata”.
On the issue of custody of children, the Court held that relocation of children by the mother was a protective measure in the circumstances and did not warrant adverse inference. It further reiterated that “even if the appellant-wife is highly educated and professionally qualified, that by itself cannot be a reason to absolve the husband from his matrimonial, paternal, moral and legal responsibility to provide for his wife and children”.
The Court rejected the husband’s claim of financial incapacity and described the same as “nothing but a subterfuge to evade his legal and moral obligations”. It also considered the value of the matrimonial home and found merit in granting financial security equivalent to its worth.
Court’s Decision and Directions
The Court held that present case was a fit case for exercise of powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and to bring complete quietus by terminating all inter se proceedings.
The Court allowed the appeal and issued following directions:
-
The marriage between the parties was dissolved.
-
All civil, criminal, and miscellaneous proceedings between the parties, including those against relatives and lawyers, were quashed.
-
Custody of both children was granted to the wife, with structured visitation rights to the father.
-
The husband was directed to cooperate in passport-related formalities for the child.
-
A consolidated sum of ₹5 crores was awarded to the wife towards full and final settlement of all claims, including maintenance, alimony, child support, and litigation expenses, payable within one year.
-
The wife was required to vacate the matrimonial flat upon receipt of the full amount.
-
The husband was restrained from initiating further proceedings against the wife, her relatives, or her lawyers.
-
All connected contempt petitions and miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.
[XXX v. YYY, Civil Appeal @ SLP(civil) no(s). 28311 of 2024, decided on 7-4-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Sandeep Mehta
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
