No Purpose in Perpetuating a Legal Relationship That Has Ceased to Have Any Meaning: Supreme Court Grants ₹1 Crore Alimony

In a recent Judgement ,  the Supreme Court of India invoked its constitutional powers under Article 142 to dissolve a 15-year-long defunct marriage. The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta not only brought closure to a prolonged matrimonial dispute but also ordered a comprehensive final settlement wherein the respondent-husband agreed to pay ₹1 crore as permanent alimony to the appellant-wife and their minor child. By invoking Article 142, the Court ensured complete justice, quashing all pending civil and criminal proceedings arising from the marriage, and affirming that no further claims would be entertained from either party.

“No Marital Bond Survives Between Them”: Court Declares Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Justifies Divorce

The Court, while acknowledging the appellant-wife’s opposition to the divorce, unequivocally held that the relationship between the parties had completely collapsed. It was noted that the parties had been living separately since April 15, 2010, and that despite repeated attempts at reconciliation, including proceedings before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, no positive outcome had emerged. The Court observed, “Years of acrimony and bitterness have defined their relationship, and despite the appellant-wife contesting the grant of divorce, we find that no marital bond survives between them. In these circumstances, there is no purpose in perpetuating a legal relationship that has ceased to have any meaning.” Exercising its powers under Article 142, the Court dissolved the marriage, remarking that this was a textbook example of an irretrievable breakdown.

From Matrimony to Multiplicity of Litigation: The Legal Journey Spanning Over a Decade

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on October 5, 2009. The appellant-wife left the matrimonial home on April 15, 2010, alleging mental and physical harassment at the hands of her in-laws. While living at her parental home, she gave birth to the couple’s son on December 28, 2010. This separation soon turned into an extended legal battle. On July 9, 2013, the appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance for herself and her child. Later, on January 16, 2019, she also instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Trial Court awarded her and her child monthly maintenance, granted residence rights, directed payment for rent, electricity and education, and also awarded ₹4 lakhs in compensation for emotional and physical suffering under Section 22 of the DV Act.

Appeals followed from both sides before the Sessions Court, which on July 29, 2021, upheld the Trial Court’s decision. Separately, the Family Court adjudicated the Section 125 CrPC application and on October 15, 2022, awarded additional maintenance. However, the respondent-husband approached the High Court of Rajasthan by filing three criminal revision petitions. The High Court dismissed the wife’s revision, allowed the husband's challenge to the Family Court order by setting it aside, and also set aside the ₹4 lakh compensation under the DV Act, although it retained the other reliefs.

The wife approached the Supreme Court through SLP (Crl) No. 6685 of 2024 and the husband through SLP (Crl) No. 14187 of 2023. On March 19, 2025, the husband’s SLP was dismissed. The Court meanwhile passed several orders directing him to clear outstanding maintenance arrears, and bank drafts were submitted in compliance with these orders.

“₹1 Crore is Just, Fair and Reasonable”: Court Accepts Final Alimony Settlement

On July 29, 2025, the Supreme Court recorded a critical development in the proceedings. The husband, through counsel, offered ₹1 crore as full and final settlement for all claims of the wife and child. The Court noted in its final judgment, “Upon a careful consideration of all relevant factors, including the income and financial standing of the parties, and other attendant circumstances, we find the amount of ₹1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) to be a just, fair and reasonable amount as permanent alimony and towards all pending dues.”

The Court further held that this settlement would encompass all claims arising from the marital relationship. It made clear that upon receipt of the amount, neither party could raise any future claims against the other. However, it clarified that this would not preclude the respondent-father from contributing further to the child’s education, should he wish to. The appellant-wife was directed to provide necessary bank details to enable the payment, which was to be completed within three months from the date of the judgment.

All Civil and Criminal Proceedings Arising from Marriage Quashed

Significantly, the Supreme Court exercised its full discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142 not only to dissolve the marriage but also to bring all related litigations to a final close. The Court held, “All pending proceedings, civil or criminal, arising out of this marriage, shall by virtue of this order, stand quashed and closed.” With this direction, the Court ensured that the parties could move forward without further entanglements in the legal system. It also emphasized the constitutional mandate of rendering complete justice, particularly in protracted and irreconcilable matrimonial disputes.

The decision in Rekha Minocha v. Amit Shah Minocha & Others is a clear affirmation of the Supreme Court’s readiness to use its Article 142 powers to dissolve marriages which are dead in law and fact, even in the absence of mutual consent, where years of separation and hostility have rendered reconciliation impossible. It is also reflective of the Court’s commitment to ensuring equitable relief, as evidenced by the comprehensive settlement package of ₹1 crore approved for the wife and child. This judgment not only terminates a long-standing and acrimonious dispute but also underscores the Court’s resolve to protect dignity and ensure justice in complex matrimonial matters, where procedural technicalities often prolong emotional and legal hardship.

Date of Decision: October 29, 2025