Matrimonial Mahabharata: Supreme Court Dissolves "Dead Marriage"; Directs Husband To Pay 5Cr To Wife
The Supreme Court intervened to end a Matrimonial "Mahabharata", shielding wife's advocates from harassment and ensuring the financial security of minor children.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve a decade-long matrimonial dispute, awarding a consolidated sum of 5 Crores as permanent alimony. The Court ordered the closure of over 80 legal proceedings, including those initiated by the respondent-husband against the appellant-wife’s advocates and family members. Previously, through an order dated February 25, 2026, the Court noted that the husband, a practicing advocate, was exploiting his knowledge to intimidate wife’s counsel, and had consequently stayed all such pending proceedings across forums and courts.
By ordering the 5 Crore payment, which covers alimony, child support, and litigation expenses, the Court aimed to balance the wife's right to secure accommodation with the husband’s persistent history of defaulting on maintenance. The Bench categorically remarked that it could ‘quite foresee the reason’ why the wife found it ‘extremely difficult to continue her matrimonial relationship’, considering the husband’s relentless, vindictive, and oppressive conduct, as revealed during the proceedings.
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “…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 inter se, including those against the relatives and legal counsels, in order to do complete justice and provide a quietus to this decade-long dispute which has crossed all limits and has assumed the status of a matrimonial battle of Mahabharata”.
Senior Advocates Amit Rawal, Devashish Bharuka appeared for the appellant and the respondent-husband appeared in-person.
The parties were married in January 20, 2010 as per Hindu rites and later registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Following the birth of two sons, the relationship deteriorated, leading to a permanent separation in October 2016.
The appellant-wife initiated proceedings for divorce, interim maintenance, and an injunction to secure her residence in the shared matrimonial home. Conversely, the respondent-husband, a law professional, filed for divorce, custody, and multiple applications alleging perjury against the wife.
The procedural history is marked by the respondent-husband’s consistent failure to comply with interim maintenance orders, which initially required a monthly payment of Rs. 80,000. Despite the High Court of Bombay affirming the reasonableness of this amount, the husband defaulted, leading the Family Court to strike off his defense and dismiss his petitions for custody and divorce in 2021.
The matter reached the Supreme Court after the High Court dismissed the wife’s plea for expedited execution proceedings as infructuous. During the pendency of the appeal, the husband filed a frivolous Article 32 petition, which was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5 Lakhs.
The Bench observed that the husband had resigned from directorships in family businesses to create an artificial veil of financial incapacity. Furthermore, the Court noted that targeting the wife's lawyers through disciplinary and criminal proceedings was an oppressive tactic that rendered the marriage dead for all practical purposes. The Bench found that the relocation of the children to Kolkata was a protective measure by the mother in response to intense hostility in Mumbai.
“The appellant-wife has taken a specific plea that the respondent-husband was earlier a Director in various companies connected to the family business and just in order to escape his financial liabilities towards maintenance, he resigned from these directorships and enrolled as a lawyer. 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 Bench noted.
“The respondent-husband is directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 5 Crores to the appellant-wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims, including permanent alimony, maintenance (past, present, and future), child support, and litigation expenses. This amount shall be paid by the respondent-husband within a period of one year from the date of this judgment, either in a single transaction or in four equal quarterly instalments. It is clarified that the cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs imposed upon the respondent-husband, payable to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), while dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 240 of 2025, shall stand included within and adjusted against the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5 Crores”, the Bench further noted.
As per the directions of the Court, the marriage stands dissolved, and all inter se civil and criminal proceedings are quashed. The husband is directed to pay Rs. 5 Crores within one year in quarterly instalments. The wife is granted absolute custody of the children, while the husband is granted specific monthly visitation and temporary holiday custody. Both parties are required to furnish undertakings to prevent further litigation and ensure the peaceful vacation of the matrimonial home upon final payment.
Cause Title: XXX v. YYY [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 334]
Appearances:
Appellant: Amit Rawal, Sr. Adv., Aman Vachher, Sujit Lahoti, Abhiti Vachher, Akshat Vachher, Tejasvi Kudtarkar, Jasvinder Choudhary, Rishika, M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR, Advocates, Petitioner appeared-in-person.
Respondent: Respondent-husband appeared in-person.