Divorce Law | Since the Parties Have Moved On, There is No Purpose in Reviving Matrimonial Disputes: Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India in Mehroz Jafri vs. Kaleem Mulla [Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 arising from SLP(C) No. 4635 of 2023], delivered a conclusive judgment resolving a long-standing matrimonial and allied criminal litigation between the parties. A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma took note of the changed circumstances, including remarriage and parenthood of the appellant Mehroz Jafri, and held that no useful purpose would be served by reviving the pending matrimonial proceedings.
The Court observed, “Since the parties are no longer interested in continuing with the lis and they have expressly stated that the cases filed by them as against the other may be closed, we take note of the affidavits filed by the respective parties and the submissions made by their respective counsel.”
Background — Matrimonial Dispute Spanning Over a Decade Ends in Final Closure
The dispute arose when Mehroz Jafri, the wife of the respondent, had initially obtained a decree of divorce under Section 2 of the Muslim Marriage Dissolution Act, 1939, vide judgment dated 25.11.2011, passed ex-parte by the Family Court at Lucknow. Subsequently, the respondent-husband filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree, which was allowed by the Family Court. Mehroz Jafri's appeal against this order before the Allahabad High Court was dismissed on 24.01.2023, leading to the present appeal.
During the hearing before the Supreme Court, it came to light that Mehroz Jafri had since remarried and had a child from her second marriage. Both parties, through affidavits, informed the Court that they had mutually decided to end all disputes, including civil, criminal, and matrimonial litigations, pending between them in various courts of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
Supreme Court Declares: “All Pending Cases Quashed in Exercise of Powers Under Article 142”
Referring to the parties’ willingness to bring the entire litigation to a peaceful conclusion, the Court exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash all pending criminal, matrimonial, and civil proceedings.
The Court ruled, “The aforesaid cases filed by the appellant against the respondent stand quashed in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution so as to do complete justice to the parties herein. In the same way, the aforesaid cases filed by the respondent against the appellant stand quashed.”

The judgment cataloged all pending cases, including:

•    Criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
•    Proceedings under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, Family Court Act, and multiple revisions and complaints before the Allahabad High Court and other trial courts.
•    The Supreme Court ordered that no further claims, including those for maintenance, dower (mehar), or any other relief shall be maintainable by either party against the other.
“No Claim Shall Be Made By Either Party Against The Other In Future” — Court Imposes Total Litigation Bar
The Court noted with satisfaction that both parties had, in their respective affidavits, agreed to:
•    Waive all pending claims.
•    Withdraw all ongoing litigation.
•    Abstain from initiating any future legal proceedings against each other.
The Bench recorded, “The appellant shall not have any further claim including maintenance as well as mehar against the respondent herein. Similarly, the respondent shall not have any claim whatsoever as against the appellant herein. No further litigation shall ensue between the parties.”
The judgment grants liberty to both parties to present this order before any court where the related cases were pending to formally record closure.
Significance — Supreme Court Uses Article 142 to End Prolonged Family Feud in Larger Interest of Justice
By invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court avoided a mechanical remand of the matter for fresh trial and instead prioritized the practical realities and personal circumstances of the parties. The Court put an end to nearly 17 years of matrimonial, criminal, and ancillary litigation between the families, reinforcing its commitment to doing complete justice.
Justice Nagarathna and Justice Sharma remarked that the mutual resolution by the parties was in the larger interest of their respective futures and families.

Date of Decision: 26 March 2025