Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To End "Mahabharata" Matrimonial Battle, Quashes Lawyer-Husband's 80 Cases Against Wife And Her Advocates

"This is a supremely fit case warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India... to provide a quietus to this decade-long dispute which has crossed all limits and has assumed the status of a matrimonial battle of Mahabharata", Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated April 7, 2026, invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a decade-long acrimonious marriage, while simultaneously quashing over 80 vexatious legal proceedings filed by a lawyer-husband against his wife, her family, and her legal counsels.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the marriage was dead for all practical purposes and ordered the husband to pay a consolidated permanent alimony of Rs 5 Crores, noting that his claims of financial incapacity were a mere subterfuge to evade his legal obligations.

The parties were married in 2010 and their marriage was registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Due to grave differences, they separated in October 2016. The appellant-wife approached the Supreme Court challenging a Bombay High Court order that had dismissed her plea seeking the expeditious disposal of execution proceedings for the recovery of maintenance arrears before the Family Court. Over the years, the respondent-husband, a practicing advocate, persistently defaulted on paying the interim maintenance of Rs 80,000 per month and initiated a barrage of civil, criminal, and disciplinary proceedings against the wife and her ecosystem.

The primary question before the court was whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution should be exercised to dissolve an irretrievably broken marriage and quash a multiplicity of vindictive litigations. The court was also called upon to determine the appropriate quantum of consolidated permanent alimony and the absolute custody of the minor children, given the husband's persistent default in maintenance proceedings.

Abuse Of Legal Process By Lawyer-Husband

The Supreme Court took strong exception to the conduct of the respondent-husband, who had utilized his legal knowledge to file over 80 proceedings against his wife, her relatives, and her advocates across various forums. The bench noted that he had even initiated disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, against the lawyers representing his wife. The court observed that this relentless barrage of litigation clearly indicated a "hostile, cantankerous and vindictive approach" on the part of the husband.

Wife's Income Does Not Absolve Husband's Liability

Addressing the husband's argument that the wife was a highly qualified professional earning a substantial income, the bench firmly rejected the premise that this extinguished his duties. Emphasizing the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, the court noted that the couple's younger son is a Canadian citizen whose upbringing requires significant financial resources. The bench held that even if the appellant-wife is highly educated and professionally qualified, that by itself cannot be a reason to absolve the respondent-husband from his "matrimonial, paternal, moral and legal responsibility" to provide for his family.

"Even if the appellant-wife is highly educated and professionally qualified, that by itself cannot be a reason to absolve the respondent-husband from his matrimonial, paternal, moral and legal responsibility to provide for his wife and children."

Financial Incapacity Claims Termed A Subterfuge

The court scrutinized the husband's financial conduct, specifically the wife's plea that he had resigned from directorships in family-connected companies solely to project poverty and escape maintenance liabilities. The Family Court had previously struck off his defence under Order XXXIX Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to his contumacious non-compliance. Concurring with the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that the husband's claim of lacking financial resources was an artificial veil and "nothing but a subterfuge to evade his legal and moral obligations."

Child Relocation Justified As A Protective Measure

The respondent-husband vehemently argued that the wife had unilaterally relocated the children to Kolkata, thereby denying him visitation rights and alienating the minor sons. The Supreme Court dismissed this grievance, noting the intense hostility and multiple litigations triggered by the husband in Mumbai. The bench held that no oblique motive could be imputed to the mother, as the relocation was clearly a "protective measure" prioritizing the care, welfare, and secure upbringing of the minor children.

Sweeping Directions Under Article 142

To do complete justice, the Supreme Court passed comprehensive directions dissolving the marriage and granting absolute custody of the two minor sons to the appellant-wife. The respondent-husband was granted specific visitation rights, including the second weekend of every month and temporary custody during half of the summer and winter vacations. The court also directed the husband to fully cooperate in the renewal of the younger son's Canadian passport, warning that failure to do so would invite contempt proceedings.

Quashing Of All Vexatious Proceedings

In a major relief to the wife and her legal team, the court ordered the immediate closure of all pending civil, criminal, and miscellaneous proceedings filed by either party. This included the quashing of all FIRs and complaints under Section 498A IPC, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and Section 156(3) CrPC. Crucially, the bench quashed all complaints filed by the husband before the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council against the wife's advocates, firmly putting an end to the harassment of legal professionals.

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by dissolving the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and directing the husband to pay Rs 5 Crores as consolidated permanent alimony and child support within one year. By quashing every single pending litigation between the parties and their extended circles, the court ensured a definitive quietus to the decade-long legal harassment, reinforcing that the extraordinary powers under Article 142 can be utilized to rescue victims of malicious legal persecution.

Date of Decision: 07 April 2026