The Supreme Court has recently ended a decade-long divorce dispute, describing it as a “matrimonial battle of Mahabharata.”

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ordered a lawyer to pay ₹5 crore as alimony. The Court noted that he had misused his legal knowledge to file more than 80 proceedings against his wife, her family, and even her legal representatives.

The Court dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and also set aside all pending cases to bring a final end to the harassment.

“This is a supremely fit case…to annul the marriage…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,” the Court said.

Background of marriage and conduct:

The parties were married in 2010 and started living separately in 2016. The Court noted that the husband, who is a practicing advocate, used his professional position to obstruct his wife’s maintenance and custody claims.

He filed disciplinary complaints before bar councils and also initiated criminal cases against the lawyers representing his wife. The Bench described his conduct as “hostile, cantankerous and vindictive.”

His actions also included a baseless writ petition filed directly before the Supreme Court earlier, in which he claimed that his fundamental rights were violated due to the matrimonial dispute and alleged false statements made by his wife.

The apex court dismissed this petition in April 2025 as “frivolous and malicious,” refused his request to withdraw it, and imposed costs of ₹5 lakh.

High Court delay in maintenance case:

The case reached the Supreme Court after the Bombay High Court rejected the wife’s request for time-bound recovery of her maintenance arrears.

Her execution proceedings had been pending in the Bandra family court for more than two years because there was no presiding officer.

In September 2024, the High Court disposed of her petition by only noting that a judge had eventually been appointed, but it did not set any timeline for recovery of the dues. Dissatisfied with this, the wife approached the Supreme Court.

Financial dispute:

A key issue before the apex court was the husband’s claim that he did not have financial capacity to pay. The wife argued that he had intentionally stepped down from directorships in family businesses and became a lawyer only to avoid his financial responsibilities.

The Court accepted the wife’s argument and described the husband’s claim of poverty as an “artificial veil” created to avoid his responsibilities as a father and husband.

The Bench also noted that the wife was living in a Mumbai flat owned by her father-in-law, which was valued at ₹5 crore, and that the husband wanted her to vacate it.

To resolve the dispute, the Court directed the husband to pay a lump sum of ₹5 crore as a full and final settlement towards alimony, child support, and litigation expenses. The earlier ₹5 lakh cost imposed in the writ petition was adjusted within this amount.

Custody and final directions:

The Court granted complete custody of the two minor sons to the mother, while allowing the father monthly visitation rights. It also directed that upon receipt of the full ₹5 crore, the wife must vacate the Mumbai flat peacefully.

Lastly, the Court required the husband to submit an undertaking that he would not initiate any further proceedings against his wife, her relatives, or her lawyers, cautioning that any violation would attract strict action.

Accordingly, the contempt petition along with miscellaneous application was disposed of.

Case Details: Case Details: XXX vs YYY (SLP (C ) No. 28311 of 2024)