The Supreme Court on September 28, 2026, brought an end to a long-running matrimonial dispute after exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Article 142 and ordered that the pending civil and criminal cases between the parties stand quashed
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan. The Court also recorded that the agreed permanent alimony of ₹35 lakh had been paid to the petitioner-wife in full and final settlement of her claims.
The parties were married on December 4, 2016, at Cuttack, Odisha. According to the judgment, they began living separately from 2022 because of differences that could not be resolved. Over the following years, several civil and criminal proceedings were initiated between the spouses and their family members.
The wife had approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of a criminal case pending in Cuttack to Mumbai. A separate transfer petition concerned proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Both proceedings had earlier been stayed by the Supreme Court.
During the pendency of the transfer petitions, the husband moved an application under Article 142 seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and requesting that the pending litigation arising from the matrimonial dispute be brought to an end. The parties had also been referred to mediation, but the mediation process did not result in a settlement.
The wife subsequently agreed to the divorce by mutual consent. The principal issue that remained was the amount of permanent alimony. The Supreme Court had earlier directed enhancement of the amount to ₹35 lakh, taking into account the submissions concerning the wife's requirements. The husband thereafter paid ₹2 lakh immediately and handed over two demand drafts totalling ₹33 lakh for the remaining amount. The wife acknowledged receipt.
While considering whether it could dissolve the marriage directly, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, where the scope of Article 142 in matrimonial disputes was examined.
The Court noted that Article 142 enables the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do complete justice in a matter. It also emphasised that the existence of such power does not mean that it must automatically be exercised in every case. The circumstances of each case have to be examined, including whether the parties have genuinely settled their disputes and whether issues such as alimony and other claims have been addressed.
The Court further relied on Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, observing that divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown is a discretionary power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Relevant considerations include the duration of separation, attempts at settlement, the nature of pending proceedings and the overall circumstances of the parties.
“At the same time, when there is complete separation over a long period and the parties have moved apart and have mutually agreed to separate, it would be incoherent to perpetuate the litigation by asking the parties to move the trial court.”
The Supreme Court observed:
“We therefore find force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent No.3/husband that since the marriage between the parties in the present case has come to a dead end and there is no possibility of reconciliation, real justice will be achieved by allowing the application filed by respondent No.3/husband under Article 142 of the Constitution and consequently granting the prayers for a decree of divorce by mutual consent and quashing of pending cases between the parties.”
The Bench found that the parties had been living separately since 2022, that numerous proceedings were pending between them and their family members, and that earlier efforts at mediation had not succeeded. Since both parties agreed to dissolve the marriage and the permanent alimony had been paid in full and final settlement, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142.
The Court held that all pending cases enumerated in the judgment, as well as any other civil or criminal cases filed inter se between the parties, stood quashed. The parties were also directed not to institute fresh cases against each other. The two transfer petitions were accordingly disposed of, and the Registry was directed to draw up the decree.
Case Title: Shikha w/o Varun Surekha @ Shikha d/o Sharadkumar Raniwala v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Number: Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 493 of 2025 with Transfer Petition (Civil)
