NEW DELHI<\/em>:<\/strong> The Supreme Court<\/a><\/strong> granted divorce to Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah<\/strong> and his estranged wife Payal Abdullah<\/strong> after being informed that both parties had finally settled their matrimonial dispute through mediation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The divorce brought an end to a prolonged matrimonial battle between the parties, who had reportedly been living separately for nearly 17 years<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both parties agreed to separate amicably and jointly moved an application before the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India<\/em><\/strong>, requesting the Court to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The matter was placed before a Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha <\/strong>and<\/strong> Justice Alok Aradhe<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal<\/strong>, appearing in the matter, informed the Court that the matrimonial dispute had been settled and that the parties no longer wished to continue the marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He submitted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe parties have embraced freedom. Article 142 filed, my lords may grant divorce.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court was also informed that the joint application seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent had been filed on July 22, 2026<\/strong>. After considering the settlement and the joint request, the Supreme Court granted the divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case had reached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court dismissed Omar Abdullah\u2019s appeal against the Family Court\u2019s refusal to grant him divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Omar Abdullah and Payal Abdullah were married on September 1, 1994<\/strong>, under civil law in England. Omar Abdullah had earlier sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion<\/strong> under Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, read with Sections 27(1)(b) and 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n He claimed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down,<\/strong> that the parties had been living separately since 2009 and that they had not shared a matrimonial relationship since 2007. He also alleged that Payal Abdullah had refused discussions for an amicable separation and hadalienated the children from him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Payal Abdullah denied these allegations and maintained that the parties had stayed separately because of security concerns and the children\u2019s education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court rejected Omar Abdullah\u2019s divorce petition on August 30, 2016. It held that he had failed to prove cruelty or desertion and that the parties\u2019 separate residence was based on a mutual arrangement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On December 12, 2023, the Delhi High Court upheld that decision. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva <\/strong>and<\/strong> Justice Vikas Mahajan<\/strong> held that the allegations of cruelty were vague and that there was no sufficient evidence to prove desertion under the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Omar Abdullah then approached the Supreme Court and also sought appropriate relief under Article 142 of the Constitution<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On August 30, 2024, the Supreme Court recorded that both sides wanted an opportunity to explore settlement and directed them to appear before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court ordered:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBoth the parties have jointly suggested that before hearing of this matter, let the parties work out for a settlement.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It further directed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cConsequently, we direct the parties to appear before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre which shall make efforts to explore all avenues and bring a settlement between the parties.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n On November 4, 2024, the Court was informed that settlement talks were continuing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court recorded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is informed by both the sides that settlement talks are going on between the parties.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n On January 6, 2025, the Supreme Court was informed that mediation was still underway. Counsel for the husband also stated that the maintenance amount would be deposited in the wife\u2019s account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The order recorded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA statement is given at the bar by both the parties that mediation is going on.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It further stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMs. Malvika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband has given a statement that the amount of maintenance shall be deposited in the account of the respondent-wife by tomorrow. Statement is taken on record.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n On April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court noted that mediation had failed. However, instead of immediately deciding the dispute, it gave the parties another opportunity to sit together and resolve their differences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAlthough the mediation in this case has failed, but purely in order to give another chance, the parties shall sit together and make an effort to resolve their disputes.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It directed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cLet the efforts be made within three weeks.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Those repeated settlement efforts ultimately succeeded. By July 2026, the parties had reached an agreement and jointly asked the Supreme Court<\/strong> to dissolve their marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ordinary courts cannot grant divorce only because a marriage has irretrievably broken down unless a statutory ground is proved. The Supreme Court, however, may exercise its extraordinary power under Article 142<\/em><\/strong> to dissolve a marriage where continuing the legal relationship would serve no useful purpose and the parties have settled all pending disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this case, the Court did not grant divorce by reversing the earlier factual findings on cruelty or desertion. The marriage was dissolved because both parties reached a settlement and jointly requested relief under Article 142.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTION<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law and Provision<\/strong><\/strong><\/td> What It Means<\/strong><\/strong><\/td> Application in This Case<\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Article 142, Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Gives the Supreme Court power to pass orders necessary to do complete justice<\/strong> in a pending matter.<\/td> Both parties jointly requested the Supreme Court to dissolve the marriage after settlement.<\/td><\/tr> Section 18, Foreign Marriage Act, 1969<\/strong><\/td> Permits matrimonial relief concerning marriages solemnised abroad by applying specified provisions of the Special Marriage Act.<\/td> Omar Abdullah\u2019s marriage was solemnised under civil law in England, and his divorce proceedings were pursued through this provision.<\/td><\/tr> Section 27(1)(b), Special Marriage Act<\/a>, 1954<\/strong><\/td> Permits divorce where one spouse has deserted the other continuously for at least two years before filing the petition.<\/td> Omar Abdullah alleged desertion, but the Family Court and Delhi High Court found that the statutory requirements were not proved.<\/td><\/tr> Section 27(1)(d), Special Marriage Act, 1954<\/strong><\/td> Permits divorce where one spouse has treated the other with cruelty after marriage.<\/td> The husband alleged mental cruelty, but the earlier courts held that the allegations were vague and insufficiently proved.<\/td><\/tr> Section 28, Special Marriage Act, 1954<\/strong><\/td> Provides divorce by mutual consent where the parties have lived separately, cannot live together and mutually agree to dissolve the marriage.<\/td> The final settlement reflected mutual consent, though the reported Supreme Court relief was sought through Article 142.<\/td><\/tr> Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Provides divorce on the ground of cruelty in Hindu marriages.<\/td> The Delhi High Court compared this provision with Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act while examining the meaning and standard of cruelty.<\/td><\/tr> Section 13B, Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Provides divorce<\/strong> by mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act.<\/td> It was discussed comparatively in the Delhi High Court judgment while examining matrimonial law and consensual dissolution.<\/td><\/tr> Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage<\/strong><\/td> Describes a marriage that has become emotionally dead and beyond repair. It is not presently a general statutory ground available to ordinary courts.<\/td> The husband argued that the marriage had completely broken down, but final relief became possible only after settlement and invocation of Article 142.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Particular<\/strong><\/strong><\/td> Details<\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Case Title<\/strong><\/td> Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Court<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court of India<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Final Bench<\/strong><\/td> Justice P.S. Narasimha <\/strong>and<\/strong> Justice Alok Aradhe<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/td> Civil Appellate Jurisdiction<\/td><\/tr> Case Number<\/strong><\/td> SLP (C) No. 7427 of 2024<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Application No.<\/strong><\/td> IA No. 77610\/2024 seeking an appropriate order or decree under Article 142<\/td><\/tr> Impugned Judgment<\/strong><\/td> Delhi High Court judgment dated December 12, 2023<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n COUNSELS APPEARED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Party\/Stage<\/strong><\/strong><\/td> Counsel Details<\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> For Omar Abdullah \u2013 Petitioner\/Husband<\/strong><\/td> Senior Advocate <\/strong>Kapil Sibal<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> For Payal Abdullah \u2013 Respondent\/Wife<\/strong><\/td> Senior Advocate Shyam Divan<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n