'Matrimonial Battle Of Mahabharata', Supreme Court Dissolves 10-Year Estranged Marriage, Quashes 80+ Cases Between Couple

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 8) dissolved a marriage between a couple who were living apart for the last 10 years, and have filed over 80 cases against each other, their relatives and counsel, in what it described as bringing an end to the “matrimonial battle of Mahabharata”.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta strongly criticized the conduct of the respondent-husband, a lawyer by profession, observing that he had deliberately prolonged the litigation by misusing his legal expertise. The Court noted that he went to the extent of targeting the wife's legal counsel, filing nine cases against them across various forums to intimidate them, besides initiating proceedings against relatives.

“…the respondent-husband was exploiting his knowledge as a law professional to frustrate the proceedings and to intimidate the advocates appearing for the appellant-wife…”, the court noted.

During the course of the proceedings, the Respondent-husband showed his incapacity to pay the permanent alimony, citing his recent resignation from the company's directorship, which the Court found to be 'subterfuge'. The Court rejected the husband's defence that the Appellant-wife was a well-qualified and trained professional, hence could take care of herself and her kids living abroad. Instead, the Court said that “maintenance, upbringing and the education of the son would require significant financial resources, especially considering today's high cost of living and education. Thus, 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.”

“We find force in the submission that the respondent-husband's claim of financial incapacity is nothing but a subterfuge to evade his legal and moral obligations.”, the court added.

Ultimately, the Court ordered the Respondent-husband to pay Rs. 5 Crore permanent alimony to the Appellant-wife as part of a full and final settlement, and in turn asked the Appellant-wife to vacate residential apartment owned by the Respondent's father, with a direction to both the parties to submit an undertaking before the Court, where the wife shall show that she had peacefully vacated and handover the possession of the flat owned by the respondent's father, and the husband will undertake that he will not file any further civil or criminal proceedings in any Court or forum against the appellant-wife, her relatives or her lawyers.

Also, all other cases pending against the parties, their relatives, and the wife's counsel were quashed.

Resultantly, the marriage was dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in exercise of the Court's power under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Headnote

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Matrimonial Dispute – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Dissolution of Marriage and Quashing of Multiplicity of Proceedings – The parties were embroiled in a decade-long "vicious spate of litigation" including over 80 legal proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband against the appellant-wife, her family, and her legal counsels – Held that the marriage "dead for all practical purposes" and a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to do complete justice.

Exercise of Powers under Article 142 – Termination of Vexatious Litigation – Supreme Court observed the respondent-husband, a practicing advocate, had misused his legal knowledge to file vindictive and oppressive complaints before various forums, including the State Bar Council and criminal courts - To provide a "quietus" to the dispute, the Supreme Court quashed all pending civil, criminal, and miscellaneous proceedings inter se, including FIRs and disciplinary complaints against advocates.

Maintenance and Alimony – Financial Incapacity as Subterfuge – Noted that respondent-husband defaulted on interim maintenance orders despite undertakings to the High Court – Supreme Court rejected his claim of financial incapacity, noting he had resigned from directorships in family-connected companies to evade obligations - A consolidated sum of Rs. 5 Crores was awarded as permanent alimony and child support - held that the appellant-wife's relocation of the children to Kolkata was a protective measure given the intense hostility in Mumbai - Absolute custody was granted to the mother, with specific monthly visitation rights and temporary holiday custody granted to the father. [Relied on Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Paras 52-62]

Cause Title: XXX VERSUS YYY

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Amit Rawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv. Mr. Sujit Lahoti, Adv. Ms. Abhiti Vachher, Adv. Mr. Akshat Vachher, Adv. Ms. Tejasvi Kudtarkar, Adv. Mr. Jasvinder Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Rishika, Adv. M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR Petitioner-in-person

For Respondent(s) : Respondent-in-person