SC Dissolves ‘Dead Marriage’, Directs ₹5cr Alimony To Wife

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal arising from a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the delay in execution proceedings for the recovery of maintenance arrears. The appellant-wife had sought urgent directions for adjudication of execution petitions and recovery of arrears under interim maintenance orders; the High Court had dismissed her writ as infructuous after a presiding officer was posted in the Family Court.

The Court allowed the appeal and exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to bring finality to long‑running matrimonial litigation. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In this background, 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, 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.” Applying that view, the Court directed dissolution of the marriage, quashed all pending civil, criminal and miscellaneous proceedings between the parties (including complaints before Bar Councils and criminal courts), awarded absolute custody of both minor sons to the appellant‑wife with specified visitation rights to the respondent‑husband, and directed the respondent to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 5 crores to the appellant within one year (payable in a single tranche or four equal quarterly instalments). The Court further directed cooperation for passport renewal, required undertakings from both parties about vacating possession and refraining from further litigation, and adjusted earlier costs of Rs. 5 lakhs against the Rs. 5 crore amount.

Background
The marriage was solemnized in January 2010 and the parties had two sons. They separated in October 2016. The Family Court in Mumbai granted injunction protecting the appellant’s possession of the matrimonial home (7 January 2019) and interim maintenance (6 February 2019) directing the respondent to pay Rs. 50,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 15,000 per month to each child. The respondent repeatedly defaulted, prompting execution proceedings (Regular Darkhast Nos. 139/2019 and 130/2022) and multiple orders by the Family Court directing deposits and threatening striking off defences. The respondent also initiated numerous proceedings, including an application under Section 340 CrPC, complaints before Bar Councils and criminal complaints, many of which the Family Court or other fora treated as vexatious or rejected.

The appellant moved the Bombay High Court under Article 227 seeking time‑bound adjudication of execution petitions; the High Court disposed of her writ on 4 September 2024 as infructuous when a regular presiding officer was posted. The appellant sought special leave in this Court (SLP(Civ) No. 28311 of 2024). During proceedings in the Supreme Court, the respondent was directed to file an affidavit of income and assets in accordance with Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. The record reflected extensive multiplicity of litigation initiated by the respondent against the wife, her relatives, and her lawyers; this Court stayed such proceedings in February 2025. The respondent’s separate writ under Article 32 was dismissed as not maintainable and taxed with costs of Rs. 5 lakhs.

Both parties sought final adjudication and at different stages raised claims under Article 142 seeking dissolution, custody, property transfer, quashing of proceedings and monetary reliefs. Having heard detailed submissions from senior counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person, the Court concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, that the respondent had pursued a vindictive and obstructive litigation strategy, and that the interests of the children and justice required a comprehensive remedy. The Court disposed of the appeal in the terms set out above, directed the drawing of a decree, and ordered that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the courts and forums concerned; pending applications and related contempt petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Case Details:
Case No.: SLP(Civil) No. 28311 of 2024 (Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 28311 of 2024)
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 334
Case Title: XXX v. YYY
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Senior Counsel; Shri Amit Rawal, Senior Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Respondent appeared in person

Source:: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 293