1. Spouses living in separation for nearly a decade, embroiled in multiple civil and criminal proceedings, sought dissolution of marriage and resolution of maintenance and custodial disputes. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 362
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
XXX – Petitioner
Versus
YYY – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 28311 of 2024) With Contempt Petition(C) No(s). 626-627 of 2025 In SLP(Civil) No(s). 28311 of 2024 Contempt Petition(C) No(s). 657-658 of 2025 In SLP(Civil) No(s). 28311 of 2024 Miscellaneous Application No(s). 2161 of 2025 In Writ Petition(Civil) No(s). 240 of 2025
Decided On : 07-04-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amit Rawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv. Mr. Sujit Lahoti, Adv. Ms. Abhiti Vachher, Adv. Mr. Akshat Vachher, Adv. Ms. Tejasvi Kudtarkar, Adv. Mr. Jasvinder Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Rishika, Adv. M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s):Respondent-in-person
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amit Rawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv. Mr. Sujit Lahoti, Adv. Ms. Abhiti Vachher, Adv. Mr. Akshat Vachher, Adv. Ms. Tejasvi Kudtarkar, Adv. Mr. Jasvinder Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Rishika, Adv. M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s):Respondent-in-person
The Court found the marriage irretrievably broken, dissolving it and quashing all related proceedings while ordering substantial maintenance support for the wife and children.
Headnote:(A) Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Article 142 of the Constitution of India - Marriage dissolution - Decade-long litigation involving marital disputes and maintenance arrears - Court acknowledges the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, resulting in the parties living separately since 2016 - Respondent-husband evaded maintenance obligations, prompting wife to seek legal recourse - Court affirmed wife's custody of children and established visitation rights for the husband - The marriage was declared dissolved, and all pending proceedings between the parties were quashed while ordering a consolidated payment of Rs. 5 Crores to the wife for maintenance and litigation expenses. (Paras 61-62)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-wife and respondent-husband commenced legal disputes post-separation in 2016, with issues surrounding maintenance, custody of their children, and the ownership of the matrimonial residence emerging as core points of litigation.
Findings of Court:
The marriage is irretrievably broken down. All pending litigation, including criminal complaints, should be closed to foster resolution.
Issues: Whether the marriage has effectively ended and what arrangements should be made for maintenance and child custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a final resolution to the protracted dispute, recognizing the ongoing adversarial behavior of the husband.
Result: Divorce granted with comprehensive settlement and closure of all related litigation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- family law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Appeals sought dissolution of marriage, permanent alimony, and quashing of cross-proceedings; respondent contested claims, alleged perjury by the wife, and sought compensation for mental trauma and litigation. (Para 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 50 , 51 )
3. The court found the marriage irretrievably broken and characterized the husband's litigious conduct as vindictive and oppressive, requiring firm intervention to ensure justice for the wife and minor children. (Para 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 )
4. The court may invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve a marriage and terminate all related litigations to achieve complete justice in irretrievable breakdown cases. (Para 56 , 62 )
5. Marriage dissolved; all pending proceedings quashed; consolidated sum awarded as permanent alimony and child support; custody granted to mother with specified visitation rights for the father. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 )
6. Can the Supreme Court exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to put a quietus to multiple parallel matrimonial and criminal proceedings?
Yes, where a marriage has irretrievably broken down, the court may consolidate and quash all pending civil, criminal, and miscellaneous proceedings between parties to ensure total justice and finality. (Para 56 , 62 )
7. Does a spouse's claim of financial incapacity absolve them of their legal and moral obligation to maintain their spouse and children?
No, if the husband's claim of financial incapacity appears to be a subterfuge or an artificial veil created to evade his responsibilities, the court will disregard it and ensure the provision of adequate support. (Para 59 , 60 )
8. How does the court ensure the protection of the best interests of minor children during matrimonial litigation?
The court prioritizes children's needs, such as secure upbringing and education, by awarding consolidated maintenance and fixing visitation rights, ensuring the father remains liable regardless of his litigation conduct. (Para 57 , 58 , 62 )
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Mehta, J.
CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(CIVIL) NO(S). 28311 OF 2024
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant1[Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-wife”.] and the respondent2[Hereinafter, referred to as “respondent-husband”.] are spouses in acrimony, embroiled in a vicious spate of litigation spanning nearly a decade. In our firm opinion, the actual sufferers of this litigation would be the two minor sons of the parties.
4. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 4th September, 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay3[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.] in Writ Petition No. 6328 of 2023, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-wife seeking expeditious disposal of the execution proceedings regarding arrears of maintenance, as infructuous, on the ground that the learned Presiding Officer of the Family Court at Bandra4[Hereinafter, referred to as “Family Court”.] had resumed duties.
Brief Facts: -
5. The facts necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal are noted hereinbelow: -
6. The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 20th January, 2010 according to Hindu rites and subsequently registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Two children (sons) were born from the wedlock, who are currently in the care and custody of the appellant-wife.
7. On account of grave differences and acrimony, the relationship between the parties went sour, leading to their separation on 9th October, 2016.
8. Since the said date, the parties have been living separately. It is the case of the appellant-wife that pursuant to the separation, the respondent-husband eschewed all obligations to support and maintain the appellant-wife and the two minor children.
9. Shortly after the separation, the appellant-wife initiated legal proceedings to secure her residence at the shared matrimonial home, a 3 BHK flat situated at Lokhandwala Complex, Kandivali, Mumbai, by moving an application5[Petition No. B-76/2016.], seeking relief in the form of injunction to restrain the respondent-husband from disturbing her peaceful possession over the shared residence. The appellant-wife also moved an application for divorce6[Divorce Petition No. A-871/2018.] before the Family Court. The said divorce petition was accompanied by an application for interim maintenance as well.
10. In the meantime, the respondent-husband also filed a separate divorce petition7[Petition No. A-2445/2018.] and a petition seeking custody of the children8[Petition No. D-36/2017.].
11. The learned Family Court vide order dated 7th January, 2019 allowed the appellant-wife’s prayer for temporary injunction and granted interim relief by directing respondent-husband and his family members not to disturb the appellant-wife’s peaceful possession over the matrimonial home till the final disposal of the petition, or until the respondent-husband provided an alternate accommodation of similar size with similar amenities to the satisfaction of the appellant-wife.
12. Furthermore, the learned Family Court vide order dated 6th February, 2019 allowed the appellant-wife’s prayer for interim maintenance after taking into consideration the needs of the appellant-wife and the two minor children, including their educational and allied expenses, and after assessing the respondent-husband’s financial capacity on the basis of the material placed on record, including his income and banking details and, directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 15,000/- per month to each of the two children (Total Rs 80,000/- per month) from the date of filing of application (15th March, 2018) till the final disposal of the main petition. The Family Court further directed the respondent-husband to bear the educational and school-related expenses of the children and also directed him to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the appellant-wife.
13. Due to the continuous n
