The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage by mutual consent and quash a multitude of parallel criminal and civil proceedings between the spouses. After noting the parties’ agreement on divorce and a settlement of ₹35 lakh as permanent alimony, the Court directed the husband to pay the sum in two tranches and barred any fresh litigation. The judgment clarifies the contours of judicial discretion in matrimonial settlements.
Background & Facts
The Marriage and Separation
The petitioner (wife) and the respondent No.3 (husband) were married on 04 December 2016 at Cuttack, Odisha. Due to irreconcilable differences, the parties started living separately from 2022 onwards. The marriage had reached a dead end with no possibility of reconciliation.
The Pending Litigation
A substantial number of criminal and civil cases were filed inter se between the parties and their family members. Key proceedings include:
- FIR No.148/2022 dated 03 September 2022 registered with Malgodown Police Station, UDP, Cuttack, Odisha (u/s 294, 323, 341 & 506 IPC), charge sheet No.251/2024 dated 31 December 2024, GR Case (C) No.7039/2023.
- DV Misc. Case No.60/2025 filed on 22 August 2025 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking monetary relief of ₹20,00,000 and ₹2,00,000.
- Multiple complaints before Noida Police Station and DCP Women Department dated 14 November 2022, 03 January 2023, and 12 January 2023 regarding house break/theft incidents.
- Senior Citizen Act complaint dated 14 October 2022.
- Police cases PW/0400444/2023 arising from FIR No.532/2022 under Section 498A IPC.
- Various domestic violence applications and criminal appeals filed between 2022 and 2025, as detailed in the comprehensive table reproduced in the judgment.
Procedural History
- 03.06.2025: This Court issued notice and granted stay of further proceedings in Charge Sheet No.251/2024 (in FIR No.148/2022) pending before JMFC-3, Cuttack.
- 24.09.2025: Notice was issued and proceedings in DV Misc. Case No.60/2025 stayed.
- 10.12.2025: Notice issued in the interlocutory application (IA) No.294511 of 2025 filed by respondent No.3/husband under Article 142 seeking divorce and quashing of pending cases.
- 05.08.2026: After hearing counsel, the Court directed enhancement of permanent alimony from ₹30,00,000 to ₹35,00,000, taking into account the petitioner’s medical condition.
- 09.09.2026: The matter was listed for final hearing.
- 28.09.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner, through learned counsel, consistently submitted that she was ready and willing to accept a decree of divorce by mutual consent, provided a suitable and adequate amount of permanent alimony was paid to cover her medical expenses. The respondent No.3/husband, through his counsel, stated that initially he was willing to pay only ₹15,00,000 but, following the Court’s suggestions, was ready and willing to pay ₹35,00,000 as full and final settlement, arranging funds through borrowings.
Relief Sought
The respondent No.3/husband’s IA sought: (a) allowance of the application; (b) a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnized on 04 December 2016 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage; (c) quashing of all pending civil and criminal proceedings between the parties and their family members; and (d) any further orders the Court deemed fit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Supreme Court could exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent and quash all pending proceedings, and what amount of permanent alimony should be directed given the parties’ agreement and the petitioner’s medical condition.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Reliance was placed on Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231 and Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, (2025) 3 SCC 686 to argue that the Court may do “complete justice” under Article 142 when parties agree to divorce and settlement. It was contended that the husband had sufficient resources to pay a dignified sum covering medical expenses, and that the petitioner’s consent to divorce was genuine and unconditional.
For the Respondent
Counsel for respondent No.3/husband submitted that the husband had positively responded to the petitioner’s stance and the Court’s suggestions, increasing the alimony offer from ₹15,00,000 to ₹35,00,000. It was argued that the sum constituted a full and final settlement, that the husband had arranged the necessary funds (including borrowings), and that the parties were genuinely agreeable to part ways.
The Court's Analysis
The Court revisited the principles laid down in Shilpa Sailesh and Rinku Baheti, emphasizing that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) to do “complete justice” is permissible when there is no possibility of cohabitation and the parties have genuinely settled their disputes. It noted:
“We find that firstly, both parties are agreeable to part ways and therefore to seek a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Secondly, noting the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, we find that the ends of justice would be met if respondent no.3/husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to the petitioner herein.”
The Court held that the substantive conditions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (waiting period) were satisfied, the parties had freely arrived at a genuine settlement covering alimony, and there was no coercion. Consequently, the IA under Article 142 was allowed, the marriage was dissolved, and all pending cases enumerated in the table (and any other civil or criminal cases filed inter se) were directed to be quashed. The parties were also restrained from filing any fresh cases against each other.
The Verdict
The respondent No.3/husband’s application under Article 142 is allowed. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3, solemnized on 04 December 2016 at Cuttack, Odisha, stands dissolved. The husband is directed to pay permanent alimony of ₹35,00,000 in the following tranches: (a) ₹2,00,000 immediately; and (b) ₹33,00,000 to be deposited before the Registry within a period of four weeks from the date of order or, alternatively, to hand over a Demand Draft to the petitioner’s counsel on the said date. All pending criminal and civil cases listed in the judgment (and any other such cases filed inter se) are quashed. The parties are directed not to file any fresh cases against each other. The Registry is directed to draw up a decree.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Discretion Under Article 142 in Matrimonial Disputes
The judgment reaffirms that the Supreme Court may grant a divorce by mutual consent under Article 142 when the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the parties are genuinely agreeable, and a settlement covering alimony and related matters has been reached. Practitioners should now focus on demonstrating the absence of any possibility of reconciliation and the existence of a bona fide settlement when invoking Article 142.
Determination of Permanent Alimony in Mutual Consent Divorce
The Court affirmed that alimony may be fixed based on the parties’ agreement, the financial capacity of the paying spouse, and the needs of the recipient (including medical expenses). The amount of ₹35,00,000 was upheld as a full and final settlement, highlighting that courts will not interfere with a mutually agreed sum that is reasonable and takes into account special circumstances such as health-related costs.
Quashing of Parallel Proceedings
Once a decree of divorce by mutual consent is granted under Article 142, all pending criminal and civil proceedings between the parties (including those filed by family members) must be quashed to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The judgment provides a clear directive that parties are also barred from instituting fresh litigation, thereby promoting finality and reducing judicial burden.
Procedural Safeguards for Article 142 Applications
The judgment outlines a step-by-step approach: notice, stay of proceedings, hearing of parties, consideration of settlement terms, and finally passing directions for payment and quashing of cases. Lawyers should ensure that compliance timelines (e.g., payment within four weeks) are strictly adhered to and that demand drafts or registry deposits are arranged accordingly.
