Matrimonial Mahabharata: Supreme Court quashes 80 cases filed by lawyer-husband, orders ₹5 crore alimony for his wife

The Supreme Court recently ended a decade-long divorce case it termed a "matrimonial battle of Mahabharata".

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ordered a lawyer to pay ₹5 crore in alimony after noting he weaponised his legal expertise to file over 80 proceedings against his wife, her family and her advocates.

The Court dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and quashed all pending litigation to put a definitive 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.

The couple married in 2010 and separated in 2016. The Court observed that the husband, a practicing advocate, exploited his professional expertise to frustrate his wife's maintenance and custody proceedings.

He initiated disciplinary action before bar councils and filed cases in criminal courts against the lawyers representing his wife. The Bench termed this conduct "hostile, cantankerous and vindictive".

This vindictive streak included a frivolous writ petition filed by the husband directly before the Supreme Court earlier. He claimed that his fundamental rights were violated by the matrimonial dispute and his wife's allegedly false statements.

The top court dismissed it in April 2025 as "frivolous and malicious," refusing his request to simply withdraw it and imposing costs of ₹5 lakh.

The current proceedings before the apex court came to be filed after the Bombay High Court dismissed the wife's plea seeking a time-bound recovery of her maintenance arrears.

Her execution proceedings had been stalled in a Bandra family court for over two years due to the absence of a presiding officer.

The High Court disposed of her petition in September 2024, merely noting that a judge had finally been appointed, without setting any deadline for recovering the dues. The aggrieved wife then approached the Supreme Court.

A central dispute before the top court was the husband's claim of financial incapacity. The wife alleged that he had conveniently resigned from directorships in family companies to enroll as a lawyer solely to evade his liabilities.

The Court agreed, calling his portrayal of destitution an "artificial veil" created to escape his paternal and matrimonial responsibilities.

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

To resolve the deadlock, the Court ordered the husband to pay a consolidated ₹5 crore as a full and final settlement for alimony, child support and litigation expenses. The unpaid ₹5 lakh cost for the earlier writ petition was adjusted into this amount.

The Court granted absolute custody of the two minor sons to the mother, with monthly visitation rights for the father. Once the wife receives the entire ₹5 crore, she must peacefully vacate the Mumbai flat, it said.

Finally, the Court directed the husband to furnish an undertaking that he would not file any further proceedings against his wife, her relatives or her lawyers, warning that any breach would invite strict action.

Senior Advocate Amit Rawal appeared for the wife.

The husband appeared in person.

[Read Judgment]