Over 80 cases, Rs 5 crore: SC settles Mahabharata-like divorce after 10 years

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo. Aliquam non leo id magna vulputate dapibus. Curabitur a porta metus. In viverra ipsum nec vehicula pharetra. Proin egestas nulla velit, id faucibus mi ultrices et.


The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday dissolved a marriage between a couple who had been living apart for a decade, marking the conclusion of what the bench described as a “matrimonial battle of Mahabharata,” according to a report by Bar and Bench.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, the Court highlighted the extraordinary nature of the dispute, noting that the parties had filed over 80 cases against one another, their relatives, and even legal counsel. They also asked the husband to pay a Rs 5 crore alimony to his wife.

The bench also threw sharp criticism toward the respondent-husband, a lawyer, observing that he had systematically misused his legal expertise to prolong litigation and frustrate the judicial process.

It further condemned the husband’s actions in targeting the wife’s legal team, having initiated nine separate cases across various forums to intimidate her advocates. In addition, the bench dismissed the husband’s claim that he was unable to pay permanent alimony following his resignation from a corporate directorship, characterising the move as a “subterfuge” designed to evade his financial obligations.

The justices also rejected his argument that the wife’s high level of professional qualification absolved him of his duties, asserting that her education and employment status did not negate his paternal and legal responsibility.

Emphasising the high costs of modern living and education, the Court ruled that the husband remains morally and legally bound to provide for the upbringing and future of his children, regardless of the wife’s independent professional standing.

“We find force in the submission that the respondent-husband’s claim of financial incapacity is nothing but a subterfuge to evade his legal and moral obligations,” the court added.

Lastly, the court also asked the wife to vacate the apartment, which is owned by her respondent husband’s father.

– Ends

Published By:

Akash Chatterjee

Published On:

Apr 9, 2026 13:35 IST

Tune In



Source link

Tags :

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent News

About Us

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Top categories

Tags

Blazethemes @2024. All Rights Reserved.