The Supreme Court has dissolved a marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution after recording payment of ₹35 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife, bringing an end to multiple civil and criminal proceedings involving the spouses and their family members.
The bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan held that the marriage had reached a dead end and that there was no possibility of reconciliation. Considering the parties’ agreement to separate and the payment of permanent alimony in full and final settlement of the wife’s claims, the Court granted divorce and quashed the pending cases.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)
The wife had initially approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of a criminal proceeding arising from an FIR registered at Malgodown Police Station in Cuttack. The proceeding involved a chargesheet dated December 31, 2024, and was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Cuttack.
She sought its transfer to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai. The Supreme Court issued notice on June 3, 2025, and stayed further proceedings in that case.
In a separate transfer petition, the wife and her family members sought transfer of a domestic violence case instituted by her mother-in-law before the Cuttack magistrate. The Supreme Court issued notice and stayed those proceedings on September 24, 2025.
During the pendency of the transfer petitions, the husband filed an application under Article 142 seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and quashing of the civil and criminal proceedings arising from the matrimonial dispute.
The parties married on December 4, 2016, at Cuttack. Following irreconcilable differences, they began living separately in 2022.
The dispute subsequently resulted in proceedings across several forums, involving both the spouses and their family members. These included a divorce petition, domestic violence proceedings, a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, police complaints, appeals concerning domestic violence orders, a perjury application and a complaint under senior citizen legislation.
The judgment reproduced a comprehensive table containing 18 entries relating to the proceedings and complaints between the parties, including the transfer petitions before the Supreme Court.
The Court considered this extensive litigation, along with the prolonged separation, while deciding whether to exercise its constitutional power to bring the dispute to an end.
The parties were referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre during the proceedings, but mediation did not initially result in a settlement.
On February 18, 2026, counsel for the wife submitted in her presence that she was willing to settle the dispute and part ways, provided suitable settlement terms were reached. The Court again referred the matter to mediation and directed that it be assigned to senior mediator Rakesh Khanna.
Although earlier mediation efforts did not fructify, the subsequent proceedings before the Court led to agreement on dissolution of the marriage. The principal issue requiring resolution was the amount of permanent alimony.
During the hearing on August 5, 2026, counsel for the wife confirmed that she was willing to accept a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Counsel nevertheless sought an appropriate financial settlement, emphasising that the wife suffered from several ailments and required funds for treatment.
The wife’s counsel referred to documents accompanying her affidavit of income, assets and liabilities, and submitted that she was dependent on her father. It was argued that the husband had sufficient resources to provide an amount that would meet her needs and medical expenses.
The husband’s counsel submitted that the wife’s initial claim was ₹30 lakh, while the husband had initially offered ₹15 lakh. Following the Court’s suggestions, the husband agreed to increase the amount to ₹35 lakh.
His counsel also submitted that he would have to borrow part of the money and was not financially well off at that stage.
Considering the wife’s requirements and the husband’s ability to pay, the Court fixed permanent alimony at ₹35 lakh.
The August 5 order directed the husband to pay ₹2 lakh on the same day and the remaining ₹33 lakh within four weeks, either by depositing it with the Registry or by handing over a demand draft through counsel.
At the final hearing, the husband’s counsel informed the Court that the initial ₹2 lakh had been paid immediately after the earlier order. Two demand drafts had been prepared in the wife’s name for the remaining ₹33 lakh.
The wife, who was present in person, stated that she would accept the demand drafts. They were handed over to her, and she acknowledged receipt.
The Court consequently recorded that the permanent alimony agreed upon by the parties had been paid in full and final settlement of all her claims.
The bench relied on Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231, which explained the Supreme Court’s authority under Article 142 to grant divorce by mutual consent and appropriately conclude connected civil and criminal proceedings.
The precedent recognises that requiring parties to approach several courts separately for closure of matrimonial litigation can increase costs, delay final resolution and prolong anxiety.
However, the Court also referred to the distinction between the existence of constitutional power and its exercise in a particular case. Whether Article 142 should be invoked depends on the factual circumstances, assessed through objective criteria and with regard to the purposes of the statutory provisions.
The bench further relied on Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, (2025) 3 SCC 686, which held that divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely because one spouse files an application.
Such relief involves judicial discretion. The Court must be satisfied that the marriage cannot be saved and that ending the marital relationship would achieve complete justice. Relevant considerations include the period of separation, attempts at settlement, the nature of allegations, the course of litigation and the parties’ personal and financial circumstances.
Applying these principles, the bench noted that the spouses had lived separately since 2022 and were involved in a long list of civil and criminal proceedings.
It accepted the husband’s submission that the marriage had reached a dead end and that reconciliation was no longer possible. Both parties were agreeable to a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and the agreed financial settlement had been completed.
The Court therefore held that exercising its powers under Article 142 would achieve real justice between the parties.
Although the husband’s application had initially sought divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, the final judgment expressly proceeded on the parties’ agreement to divorce by mutual consent and the payment of the settled alimony.
The Supreme Court allowed the husband’s application and declared the marriage solemnised on December 4, 2016, dissolved.
It also quashed all pending cases enumerated in the judgment’s table, together with any other civil or criminal cases filed between the parties. The wife had submitted her own list and requested quashing, while the husband’s counsel sought closure of the cases identified in the annexures to his compliance affidavit. The Court considered both lists.
The bench additionally directed the parties not to file fresh cases against each other, disposed of the transfer petitions and instructed the Registry to draw up the divorce decree.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
