In a striking closure to what it described as a prolonged and exhausting matrimonial conflict, the Supreme Court dissolved a marriage marked by ten years of separation and an avalanche of litigation. The dispute, which had spiralled into more than 80 legal proceedings involving the couple, their families, and even legal representatives, was likened by the Court to an epic-scale confrontation that had consumed all sides.
The bench, while granting divorce, took a stern view of the husband’s conduct. A lawyer by profession, he was found to have stretched the litigation far beyond reasonable limits, using his legal knowledge to prolong proceedings. The Court noted that the husband had not only initiated multiple cases against his wife but had also targeted her legal counsel, filing several proceedings across different forums in what was seen as an attempt to intimidate them. Relatives of the wife were also drawn into the legal crossfire.
The Court observed that the husband’s actions reflected a deliberate effort to frustrate the resolution of the dispute. It emphasized that legal expertise should not be weaponized to harass the opposing party or obstruct justice.
During the hearing on financial arrangements, the husband claimed he lacked the capacity to pay permanent alimony, pointing to his resignation from a company directorship. The Court rejected this argument, calling it a mere façade to avoid responsibility. It underscored that financial obligations toward spouse and child cannot be sidestepped simply because the other partner is educated or professionally qualified.
The bench highlighted that raising a child, particularly with education and living costs steadily rising, demands substantial resources. The wife’s qualifications, it said, could not absolve the husband of his matrimonial and parental duties.
Bringing the prolonged dispute to a definitive end, the Court directed the husband to pay ₹5 crore as permanent alimony in full and final settlement. In return, the wife was asked to vacate a residential apartment owned by the husband’s father and hand over possession peacefully. Both parties were required to submit undertakings—one confirming the vacating of the premises, and the other assuring that no further civil or criminal proceedings would be initiated against the wife, her family members, or her lawyers.
All pending cases filed by either side, including those involving relatives and counsel, were quashed. The marriage was ultimately dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, with the Court invoking its constitutional powers to bring the long-running conflict to a close.
