80+ cases, jail, allegations from both sides – yet only one side pays ₹5 crore as alimony?
When litigation turns into a battlefield, who really bears the final cost? Read the full Supreme Court report below of this divorce case which was called ‘Matrimonial Battle Of Mahabharata’.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India dissolved a marriage between a couple who had been living separately for nearly a decade and were involved in over 80 legal proceedings against each other. The Court described the situation as a “matrimonial battle of Mahabharata”, bringing an end to prolonged and excessive litigation.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to conclude the dispute. The Court observed that the “marriage is dead for all practical purposes” and invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to “do complete justice and provide a quietus to this decade-long dispute which has crossed all limits”.
The marriage was solemnised in 2010, and the couple had two sons. Over time, the relationship deteriorated, leading to separation in 2016. Since then, both parties have been engaged in extensive litigation involving not just each other but also their respective families and legal representatives.
The wife alleged that the husband, a practising advocate, misused his legal expertise to initiate more than 80 cases against her, her relatives, and even her legal counsel. She further contended that he failed to comply with maintenance orders passed by the Family Court and the High Court.
The Court recorded:
“It was pointed out that the respondent-husband had been serving as a Director in several companies. However, he conveniently resigned from the said positions with the sole intention to evade his financial obligations,”
The wife was residing in a 3BHK flat in Mumbai owned by her father-in-law, which the husband sought to have vacated. She had been working in Kolkata to sustain herself and the children and expressed intent to relocate to Mumbai for her son’s education. The Court observed that this move “necessitates adequate and secure financial support from the father”.
The husband, appearing in person, highlighted that multiple criminal cases had been instituted against him under statutes such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 498A IPC, leading to his incarceration for a few days.
He described the consequences as “traumatic, causing him immense mental agony and irreparable loss of professional reputation”.
He further submitted that his wife had “systematically alienated” the children from him and asserted that she was financially independent yet projected herself otherwise to claim higher maintenance.
The Court noted his submission:
“He contended that he has already paid a substantial sum of over Rs. 45 Lakhs to the appellant-wife and his inability to pay the exorbitant maintenance awarded was due to financial constraints aggravated by the false and frivolous litigations instituted by the appellant-wife,”
However, the Court took a critical view of the husband’s conduct, observing that he had multiplied litigation and complicated proceedings.
It held:
“Most of these proceedings appear to be vindictive and vexatious. This clearly indicates a hostile, cantankerous and vindictive approach on part of the respondent-husband”.
The Court further remarked that the wife “would have found it extremely difficult to continue her matrimonial relationship with the respondent husband”.
On the issue of financial liability, the Court clarified:
“Even if the wife is qualified and earning, that alone cannot be a reason to absolve the respondent-husband from his matrimonial, paternal, moral andlegal responsibility to provide for his wife and children”.
Rejecting the plea of financial incapacity, the Court held:
“The husband’s claim of financial incapacity is nothing but a subterfuge to evade his legal and moral obligations”.
Accordingly, the marriage was dissolved, and all pending civil, criminal, and miscellaneous proceedings between the parties, their relatives, and associated persons were quashed.
Custody of both minor sons was granted to the wife, with visitation rights to the husband. The Court directed the husband to pay a consolidated sum of ₹5 crore within one year.
Simultaneously, the wife was directed to vacate the Mumbai flat owned by the husband’s father within two weeks of receiving the amount. Both parties were also directed to file undertakings that they would not initiate further litigation against each other or related individuals.
This ruling reflects how matrimonial disputes, when escalated through excessive litigation and cross-allegations, can lead to prolonged legal battles where the final resolution imposes substantial financial and legal consequences, often disproportionately impacting one party despite allegations and proceedings existing on both sides.
Explanatory Table – Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Provision | Explanation | Relevance in Case |
| Article 142, Constitution of India | Supreme Court’s power to do “complete justice” beyond statutory limits | Used to dissolve marriage, quash 80+ cases, and impose ₹5 crore settlement |
| Article 227, Constitution of India | Supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over subordinate courts | Wife approached High Court for expeditious execution of maintenance |
| Article 32, Constitution of India | Right to constitutional remedies | Husband filed writ alleging violation of fundamental rights; dismissed with costs |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Governs civil marriages | Marriage registered under this Act |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 340 | Procedure for prosecution for perjury | Husband sought action against wife for alleged false statements |
| CrPC Sections 156(3), 200 | Magistrate’s power to order investigation & take cognizance | Used in multiple complaints filed by husband |
| Indian Penal Code Sections 499, 500, 501 | Defamation-related provisions | Invoked in complaints against wife’s lawyers |
| IPC Sections 504, 505, 120B, 107, 34 | Criminal intimidation, conspiracy, abetment | Used across multiple litigations initiated by husband |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Civil protection law for women | Cases filed against husband, leading to custody and litigation consequences |
| Section 498A IPC | Cruelty by husband or relatives | Criminal proceedings initiated against husband |
| Order XXXIX Rule 11 CPC (Bombay Amendment) | Striking off defence for non-compliance | Husband’s defence struck off due to non-payment of maintenance |
| Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Landmark judgment on maintenance disclosure norms | Court directed filing of income affidavit as per this precedent |
Case Details
| Particulars | Details |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Title | XXX vs YYY |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No. 28311 of 2024 |
| Connected Matters | Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 626-627/2025, 657-658/2025; Misc. Application No. 2161/2025 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026 INSC 334 |
| Date of Judgment | 07 April 2026 |
| Bench | Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta |
| Jurisdiction | Civil Appellate / Inherent / Original Jurisdiction |
| Nature of Case | Matrimonial dispute, maintenance enforcement, multiplicity of litigation |
Counsels
| Party | Counsel |
| Appellant (Wife) | Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Senior Advocate |
| Appellant (Wife) | Shri Amit Rawal, Senior Advocate |
| Respondent (Husband) | Appeared in Person |
Key Takeaways
- Even after facing criminal cases, custody loss, and reputational damage, the husband was ultimately directed to pay ₹5 crore, showing how financial liability overwhelmingly falls on men.
- Multiplicity of litigation—over 80 cases—did not trigger proportional scrutiny on both sides; instead, the narrative was consolidated against one party.
- Allegations of false cases, incarceration, and mental trauma suffered by the husband were recorded but had no meaningful impact on final relief.
- Courts continue to hold that a woman’s earning capacity does not dilute the man’s financial obligations, reinforcing a one-sided maintenance framework.
- Article 142 is increasingly being used to impose final settlements that prioritize closure over balanced adjudication of competing claims.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
