Supreme Court Exercises Article 142 To Grant Divorce By Mutual Consent And Quash All Inter-se Criminal And Civil Litigation

"The exercise of discretion under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to the parties is because there is no possibility of the parties cohabiting together and continuing their marital relationship." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on September 28, 2026, exercised its extraordinary plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent and effectively quash a wide array of civil and criminal proceedings pending between the parties.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that when a marriage has reached a state of irretrievable breakdown and the parties are agreeable to separation, the court must step in to provide quietus to long-standing, vexatious litigation.

The parties were married in December 2016 and had been living separately since 2022 due to irreconcilable differences. The matrimonial fallout resulted in a complex web of nearly twenty legal proceedings, including criminal complaints under Section 498A of the IPC, domestic violence cases under the DV Act, and various other civil and procedural litigations. The matter reached the Supreme Court through multiple transfer petitions filed by the wife, seeking to consolidate the proceedings in Mumbai.

Scope of jurisdiction under Article 142

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether the inherent power to do "complete justice" could be invoked to dissolve a marriage despite the absence of a joint motion before a trial court. It further deliberated on whether such intervention could extend to the comprehensive quashing of criminal and civil proceedings initiated by the parties and their family members, thereby resolving the entire dispute in one judicial stroke.

Court underscores the shift from litigation to settlement

The bench relied heavily on the precedents set in Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan and Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda. The court reiterated that while Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act provides a statutory pathway for mutual divorce, it does not fetter the Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate to resolve deadlock-ridden marriages.

"Settlement, and not litigation, is the preferable mode of dispute resolution."

The judges emphasized that when a marriage has come to a dead end and there remains no possibility of reconciliation, the court should not insist on relegating the parties to trial courts for lengthy procedures. By taking an active role, the court ensures that the parties are not burdened by further costs, repetitive filings, and the psychological toll of prolonged legal battles.

Determining permanent alimony with a humanitarian approach

A significant aspect of the present proceedings involved the court's intervention regarding the quantum of permanent alimony. The court took specific note of the wife's medical condition and her financial dependency, leading to the enhancement of the alimony amount to Rs 35,00,000.

"The exercise of power is a mixed question of law and facts. This discretion has to be exercised on the basis of the factual matrix in the particular case, evaluated on objective criteria."

The court ensured that this financial settlement was treated as a full and final discharge of all claims, balancing the wife's requirement for treatment expenses with the husband's financial capacity. Following the acknowledgement of the receipt of the alimony by the petitioner, the bench proceeded to pass the final decree of dissolution.

Final directions for closure of all pending cases

Invoking its power under Article 142, the Supreme Court declared the marriage between the parties dissolved as of September 28, 2026. Furthermore, it explicitly ordered the quashing of all criminal and civil cases listed in the comprehensive table of disputes, including FIRs, DV applications, and perjury proceedings. The court issued a strict directive to the parties, explicitly forbidding the filing of any fresh cases against each other, thereby ensuring a final and binding resolution.

Date of Decision: 28 September 2026