New Delhi: The Supreme Court directed the husband to pay Rs 5 crore as permanent alimony to the wife, underscoring that a woman’s education or professional qualifications cannot absolve a husband of his matrimonial, paternal, moral, and legal duty to provide for his spouse and children.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta termed the decade-long dispute between estranged spouses as “a matrimonial battle of Mahabharata”.
“The respondent-husband is directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 5 Crores to the appellant-wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims, including permanent alimony, maintenance (past, present, and future), child support, and litigation expenses,” said the bench, in a judgment delivered on April 7.
It was pointed by the wife’s counsel that instead of discharging his moral and legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor children, the respondent-husband has misused his legal knowledge by filing over 80 legal proceedings against the appellant-wife, her family members, and even her legal counsels across various forums
The bench invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, a provision empowering the top court to pass any order in any case to do complete justice, to dissolve the marriage.
The bench said there is no doubt that the marriage is dead for all practical purposes, and this is a supremely fit case warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution.
“Not only to annul the marriage between the parties but also to terminate all proceedings initiated and pending inter se, including those against the relatives and legal counsels, in order to do complete justice and provide a quietus to this decade-long dispute which has crossed all limits and has assumed the status of a matrimonial battle of Mahabharata,” said the bench.
“It goes without saying that maintenance, upbringing and the education of the son would require significant financial resources, especially considering today’s high cost of living and education. Thus, 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,” said the bench.
The apex court’s judgment came on an appeal filed by the wife against the September 2024 order of the Bombay High Court. The high court refused to expedite the execution proceedings for the recovery of long-pending maintenance arrears arising from a protracted matrimonial dispute between the parties. The apex court also rejected the husband’s counterclaim of Rs 20 crore from the wife.
The bench noted that the parties have been embroiled in a long-drawn, bitter matrimonial strife, resulting in a multiplicity of litigations instituted across various courts and forums.
“We may also note that the respondent-husband has, at every stage, tried to multiply and complicate the proceedings by filing innumerable applications and complaints not only against the appellant-wife and her relatives but also against her advocates. Most of these proceedings appear to be vindictive and vexatious,” said the bench.
The bench said this clearly indicates a hostile, cantankerous and vindictive approach on part of the respondent-husband and the cantankerous conduct of the husband was taken note of by it in an order passed in February, 2025.
“In light of this relentless, vindictive and oppressive conduct of the respondent-husband, which has been thoroughly exposed during the proceedings before this Court, we can quite foresee the reason for which the appellant-wife would have found it extremely difficult to continue her matrimonial relationship with the respondent-husband,” said the bench.
The bench ordered that all pending civil, criminal, and miscellaneous proceedings filed by either party against each other, and/or relatives, including all FIRs, complaints, and other applications pending before any court or forum, shall be quashed or closed.
“The appellant-wife shall be entitled to absolute custody of both sons. However, the respondent-husband shall be entitled to visitation rights,” said the bench. The verdict brought closure to a prolonged matrimonial dispute arising from a marriage solemnised in January 2010. The couple had been living separately since October 2016, with two minor children in the custody of the wife.
