A decade and 61 cases later, Supreme Court grants divorce to end matrimonial dispute

The Supreme Court resolved a decade-long matrimonial dispute, granting divorce and settling all claims between the couple while quashing 61 related cases.

The Supreme Court has brought an end to a decade-long matrimonial dispute that spiralled into over 60 cases across the country, facilitating a comprehensive settlement between an estranged couple and granting them divorce, ending one of the most litigation-heavy marital disputes to have reached the top court.

The case had reached the top court in the form of contempt proceedings, but over the course of hearings in January and February this year, the bench actively engaged with both sides (Freepik)

A bench of justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to give a “quietus” to the litigation between the couple, noting that the parties had voluntarily arrived at a settlement covering all disputes arising out of their marriage, which was solemnised in 1994.

The case had reached the top court in the form of contempt proceedings, but over the course of hearings in January and February this year, the bench actively engaged with both sides to explore the possibility of a resolution. What followed was a structured, court-facilitated negotiation process that ultimately culminated in a joint application seeking dissolution of marriage on mutually agreed terms.

Recording the presence of both parties in court, the bench underscored in its order released on Thursday that the settlement had been arrived at “on their own free volition without there being any coercion or undue influence”. The court then proceeded to examine the terms of the agreement and found “no legal impediment” in accepting them.

What does the settlement include?

The settlement provides for a permanent alimony of ₹1 crore to be paid by the husband to the wife, along with the transfer of his share in a Lonavala property through a registered gift deed. The court directed the release of ₹90 lakh deposited with its registry to the petitioner, completing the financial terms of the settlement.

The agreement also ensured a complete closure of all disputes between the parties. It recorded that all past, present and future claims arising out of the matrimonial relationship stand extinguished, and that neither party will initiate any further civil or criminal proceedings against the other.

Taking note of this, the Supreme Court went a step further and quashed all pending cases between the parties, spanning criminal complaints, domestic violence proceedings, writ petitions, contempt pleas and appeals across trial courts, high courts and even the apex court itself. The annexure to the settlement lists 61 separate proceedings initiated over the years, reflecting the sheer scale of the legal battle.

‘Restrain from pursuing further litigation’: Court

The court made it clear that not only would all these cases stand terminated, but any future complaints on the same subject matter would also not be entertained. Both parties were restrained from pursuing further litigation against each other, effectively drawing a definitive line under years of acrimony. The order also cancelled all prior judicial directions passed in the course of these proceedings, ensuring that no residual claims or obligations survive beyond the settlement.

The judgment further highlighted how the court steered the matter towards resolution through a series of interim orders. Beginning January 13, the bench recorded the parties’ willingness to separate and worked through the contours of a financial and property settlement. Over multiple hearings, it fine-tuned the terms, addressing disputes over assets, verifying compliance, and securing undertakings from both sides, before ultimately accepting the final agreement.

Importantly, during this period, the court also directed that no coercive steps be taken by either party against the other, creating a neutral space for negotiations to progress.

By invoking Article 142, the bench ensured that procedural hurdles did not stand in the way of a complete resolution. The provision empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice”, and in this case, it was used to override technical constraints and bring all pending litigation to an end in one stroke.