{"id":380640,"date":"2026-04-09T17:30:47","date_gmt":"2026-04-09T12:00:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=380640"},"modified":"2026-04-10T16:47:49","modified_gmt":"2026-04-10T11:17:49","slug":"supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court invokes Art. 142 to quash 80+ litigations filed by lawyer-husband; grants divorce with \u20b95 crore settlement"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> 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,*<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

Brief Facts<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Proceeding before Courts below<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC).<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous once a Presiding Officer resumed charge, declining to issue time-bound directions.<\/p>\n

Proceedings Before the Supreme Court<\/h3>\n

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<\/span> v. Neha<\/span>, (2021) 2 SCC 324<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Subsequently, both parties filed applications under Article 142 seeking dissolution of marriage along with extensive reliefs concerning alimony, custody, property, and quashing of proceedings.<\/p>\n

Parties’ Contentions<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Court’s Analysis<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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”.<\/p>\n

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”.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Court’s Decision and Directions<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Court allowed the appeal and issued following directions:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    The marriage between the parties was dissolved.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    All civil, criminal, and miscellaneous proceedings between the parties, including those against relatives and lawyers, were quashed.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Custody of both children was granted to the wife, with structured visitation rights to the father.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    The husband was directed to cooperate in passport-related formalities for the child.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  5. \n

    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.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  6. \n

    The wife was required to vacate the matrimonial flat upon receipt of the full amount.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  7. \n

    The husband was restrained from initiating further proceedings against the wife, her relatives, or her lawyers.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  8. \n

    All connected contempt petitions and miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    [XXX<\/span> v. YYY<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 544<\/a>, decided on 7-4-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    *Judgment by Justice Sandeep Mehta<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"Code<\/a><\/p>\n

    Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    “Even if the appellant-wife is highly educated and professionally qualified, that by itself cannot be a reason to absolve the respondent-husband from his matrimonial, paternal, moral and legal responsibility to provide for his wife and children.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":380668,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[60875,16391,5611,12062,102106,10192,6221,55486,34871,102105,3151,78787,5363,71612],"class_list":["post-380640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-abuse-of-legal-process","tag-alimony","tag-article-142","tag-child-welfare","tag-custody-and-visitation-rights","tag-family-and-personal-laws","tag-irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage","tag-justice-sandeep-mehta","tag-justice-vikram-nath","tag-maintenance-default","tag-matrimonial_dispute","tag-matrimonial-litigation","tag-supreme-court","tag-vexatious-litigation"],"yoast_head":"\nSC Supreme Court quashes over 80 cases; grants divorce| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Supreme Court quashes over 80 cases file by lawyer-husband and grants divorce with \u20b95 crore alimony.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court invokes Art. 142 to quash 80+ litigations filed by lawyer-husband; grants divorce with \u20b95 crore settlement\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court quashes over 80 cases file by lawyer-husband and grants divorce with \u20b95 crore alimony.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-04-09T12:00:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-10T11:17:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-12-8.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Supreme Court invokes Art. 142 to quash 80+ litigations filed by lawyer-husband; grants divorce with \u20b95 crore settlement\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/\",\"name\":\"SC Supreme Court quashes over 80 cases; grants divorce| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-12-8.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-09T12:00:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-10T11:17:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"The Supreme Court quashes over 80 cases file by lawyer-husband and grants divorce with \u20b95 crore alimony.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-12-8.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-12-8.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court quashes over 80 cases\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court invokes Art. 142 to quash 80+ litigations filed by lawyer-husband; grants divorce with \u20b95 crore settlement\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC Supreme Court quashes over 80 cases; grants divorce| SCC Times","description":"The Supreme Court quashes over 80 cases file by lawyer-husband and grants divorce with \u20b95 crore alimony.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court invokes Art. 142 to quash 80+ litigations filed by lawyer-husband; grants divorce with \u20b95 crore settlement","og_description":"The Supreme Court quashes over 80 cases file by lawyer-husband and grants divorce with \u20b95 crore alimony.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-04-09T12:00:47+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-10T11:17:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-12-8.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Supreme Court invokes Art. 142 to quash 80+ litigations filed by lawyer-husband; grants divorce with \u20b95 crore settlement","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/","name":"SC Supreme Court quashes over 80 cases; grants divorce| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-12-8.webp","datePublished":"2026-04-09T12:00:47+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-10T11:17:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"The Supreme Court quashes over 80 cases file by lawyer-husband and grants divorce with \u20b95 crore alimony.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-12-8.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-12-8.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Supreme Court quashes over 80 cases"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/09\/supreme-court-quashes-over-80-cases-divorce-article-142\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court invokes Art. 142 to quash 80+ litigations filed by lawyer-husband; grants divorce with \u20b95 crore settlement"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-12-8.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":350445,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/12\/divorced-not-remarried-womans-permanent-alimony-ehanced-supreme-court-legal-news-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":380640,"position":0},"title":"Divorced, not re-married & living independently: Supreme Court enhances permanent alimony from Rs 20,000 to 50,000","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 12, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court opined that the appellant was entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage, and which reasonably secures her future.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"permanent alimony","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/permanent-alimony.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/permanent-alimony.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/permanent-alimony.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/permanent-alimony.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324719,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/19\/sc-grants-divorce-decree-after-wife-resiled-from-settlement-agreed-in-mediation\/","url_meta":{"origin":380640,"position":1},"title":"SC grants divorce decree after wife resiled from settlement and disregarded terms and conditions agreed in Mediation","author":"Editor","date":"June 19, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe wife took advantage of the settlement executed before the Mediator and managed to get the matrimonial case instituted by the husband withdrawn and also accepted a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs from the husband as permanent alimony.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"SC grants divorce decree","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/SC-grants-divorce-decree.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/SC-grants-divorce-decree.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/SC-grants-divorce-decree.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/SC-grants-divorce-decree.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":361493,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/24\/know-thy-judge-supreme-court-of-india-justice-vikram-nath-profile\/","url_meta":{"origin":380640,"position":2},"title":"Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Vikram Nath\u2019s career trajectory and influential judgments","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 24, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Justice Vikram Nath, a fourth-generation legal luminary and sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India, joined the legal profession in 1987.","rel":"","context":"In "Know thy Judge"","block_context":{"text":"Know thy Judge","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/judges-information\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Justice Vikram Nath","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Justice-Vikram-Nath.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Justice-Vikram-Nath.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Justice-Vikram-Nath.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Justice-Vikram-Nath.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":346565,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/28\/supreme-court-article-142-marriage-dissolution-visitation-rights\/","url_meta":{"origin":380640,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to dissolve marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown; Grants wife visitation rights with daughter","author":"Apoorva","date":"April 28, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIn the interest of justice, equity, and the welfare of the child, we deem it appropriate to grant visitation rights to the wife so that she may gradually rebuild a bond with her daughter.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Article 142 marriage dissolution","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Article-142-marriage-dissolution.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Article-142-marriage-dissolution.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Article-142-marriage-dissolution.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Article-142-marriage-dissolution.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":369272,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/09\/family-court-judge-divorce-case-sc-enhances-alimony-rs-50-lakh\/","url_meta":{"origin":380640,"position":4},"title":"Supreme Court enhances Alimony from Rs. 30 Lakh to Rs. 50 Lakh in Former AAG and Family Court Judge Divorce Case","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 9, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court observed that the husband, being a judicial officer holding a responsible public position, owed a heightened duty of fair, adequate, and dignified financial security for his wife and daughter.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Family Court Judge Divorce Case","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Family-Court-Judge-Divorce-Case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Family-Court-Judge-Divorce-Case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Family-Court-Judge-Divorce-Case.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Family-Court-Judge-Divorce-Case.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":372266,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/11\/sci-justice-sandeep-mehta-stellar-career-notable-judgments\/","url_meta":{"origin":380640,"position":5},"title":"Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Sandeep Mehta\u2019s stellar career and notable judgments","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 11, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Justice Sandeep Mehta, formerly the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, took oath of office as Judge of Supreme Court of India on 9-11-2023 and will be retiring on 10-01-2028.","rel":"","context":"In "Know thy Judge"","block_context":{"text":"Know thy Judge","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/judges-information\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Justice Sandeep Mehta","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Justice-Sandeep-Mehta.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Justice-Sandeep-Mehta.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Justice-Sandeep-Mehta.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Justice-Sandeep-Mehta.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/380640","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=380640"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/380640\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":380782,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/380640\/revisions\/380782"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/380668"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=380640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=380640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=380640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}