Neha Sandeep Todi vs. Sandeep Khemraj Todi

2026 INSC 334
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE/INHERENT/ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 28311 OF 2024)
XXX ….APPELLANT(S)


VERSUS


YYY ….RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NO(S). 626-627 OF 2025
IN SLP(CIVIL) NO(S). 28311 OF 2024

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NO(S). 657-658 OF 2025
IN SLP(CIVIL) NO(S). 28311 OF 2024

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO(S). 2161 OF 2025
IN WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). 240 OF 2025
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(CIVIL) NO(S). 28311 OF 2024

1. Heard.
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.04.08
17:27:38 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
1


2. Leave granted.
1 2
3. The appellant and the respondent are spouses
in acrimony, embroiled in a vicious spate of litigation
spanning nearly a decade. In our firm opinion, the
actual sufferers of this litigation would be the two
minor sons of the parties.
4. The instant appeal is directed against the order
th
dated 4 September, 2024 passed by the High Court
3
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6328 of
2023, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ
petition filed by the appellant-wife seeking
expeditious disposal of the execution proceedings
regarding arrears of maintenance, as infructuous, on
the ground that the learned Presiding Officer of the
4
Family Court at Bandra had resumed duties.
Brief Facts: -
5. The facts necessary and germane for the
disposal of this appeal are noted hereinbelow: -
6. The marriage between the appellant-wife and
th
the respondent-husband was solemnized on 20
January, 2010 according to Hindu rites and

1
Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-wife”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as “respondent-husband”.
3
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
4
Hereinafter, referred to as “Family Court”.
2


subsequently registered under the Special Marriage
Act, 1954. Two children (sons) were born from the
wedlock, who are currently in the care and custody
of the appellant-wife.
7.
On account of grave differences and acrimony,
the relationship between the parties went sour,
th
leading to their separation on 9 October, 2016.
8. Since the said date, the parties have been living
separately. It is the case of the appellant-wife that
pursuant to the separation, the respondent-husband
eschewed all obligations to support and maintain the
appellant-wife and the two minor children.
9. Shortly after the separation, the appellant-wife
initiated legal proceedings to secure her residence at
the shared matrimonial home, a 3 BHK flat situated
at Lokhandwala Complex, Kandivali, Mumbai, by
5
moving an application , seeking relief in the form of
injunction to restrain the respondent-husband from
disturbing her peaceful possession over the shared
residence. The appellant-wife also moved an
6
application for divorce before the Family Court. The

5
Petition No. B-76/2016.
6
Divorce Petition No. A-871/2018.
3


said divorce petition was accompanied by an
application for interim maintenance as well.
10. In the meantime, the respondent-husband also
7
filed a separate divorce petition and a petition
8
seeking custody of the children .
th
11. The learned Family Court vide order dated 7
January, 2019 allowed the appellant-wife’s prayer for
temporary injunction and granted interim relief by
directing respondent-husband and his family
members not to disturb the appellant-wife’s peaceful
possession over the matrimonial home till the final
disposal of the petition, or until the respondent-
husband provided an alternate accommodation of
similar size with similar amenities to the satisfaction
of the appellant-wife.
12. Furthermore, the learned Family Court vide
th
order dated 6 February, 2019 allowed the appellant-
wife’s prayer for interim maintenance after taking
into consideration the needs of the appellant-wife and
the two minor children, including their educational
and allied expenses, and after assessing the
respondent-husband’s financial capacity on the basis

7
Petition No. A-2445/2018.
8
Petition No. D-36/2017.
4


of the material placed on record, including his income
and banking details and, directed the respondent-
husband to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month to the
appellant-wife and Rs. 15,000/- per month to each of
the two children (Total Rs 80,000/- per month) from
th
the date of filing of application (15 March, 2018) till
the final disposal of the main petition. The Family
Court further directed the respondent-husband to
bear the educational and school-related expenses of
the children and also directed him to pay
Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the appellant-
wife.
13. Due to the continuous non-compliance with the
order of maintenance, the appellant-wife initiated
execution proceedings by moving Regular Darkhast
9
Petition against the respondent-husband for
recovery of arrears.
14. It may be noted that the respondent-husband
instituted Criminal Misc. Application No. 53 of 2018
seeking initiation of prosecution against the
appellant-wife for alleged perjury/false statements
made in the divorce and maintenance proceedings.

9
Regular Darkhast No. 139/2019.
5


The learned Family Court, on consideration of the
pleadings and the material placed on record, vide
th
order dated 25 September, 2019 observed that
certain statements attributed to the appellant-wife
were prima facie incorrect and that the appellant-wife
could not shift the entire blame upon her erstwhile
counsel. However, the learned Family Court declined
to direct prosecution under Section 340 of the Code
10
of Criminal Procedure , holding that the requirement
of expediency in the interest of justice was not
satisfied, and observed that such aspects could be
appropriately considered at the stage of trial.
Accordingly, the said application under Section 340
CrPC, along with ancillary applications, came to be
rejected.
15. It may further be noted that the respondent-
11
husband had also moved an application in the
injunction proceedings before the Family Court,
seeking vacation of the temporary injunction order
th
dated 7 January, 2019 passed in respect of the
matrimonial home. The learned Family Court, vide
th
order dated 24 July, 2020 rejected the said prayer

10
For short, “CrPC”.
11
Exhibit 58 in Petition No. B-76/2016.
6


noting respondent-husband’s continued non-
compliance of the interim maintenance order dated
th
6 February, 2019, further observing that appellant-
wife’s right to residence could not be defeated,
particularly when interest of two minor children was
also involved.
16. The record further reflects that the respondent-
husband has initiated multiple legal proceedings and
applications challenging various orders passed by the
learned Family Court. In particular, the respondent-
husband challenged the order awarding interim
th
maintenance dated 6 February, 2019 by filing a writ
12
petition before the High Court.
17. At the time of hearing of the aforesaid writ
petition, the respondent-husband submitted before
the High Court that he would deposit the entire
th
arrears within a period of 8 weeks from 5 February,
2020. Based on the said undertaking by the
respondent-husband, the High Court vide order
th
dated 5 February, 2020 issued notice and granted
conditional protection from coercive recovery.

12
Writ Petition No. 11914 of 2019.
7


th
18. The High Court vide order dated 27 November,
2020 dismissed the aforesaid writ petition while
observing that the learned Family Court had
assessed the respondent-husband’s income derived
from various sources and, keeping in view the
lifestyle enjoyed by the parties, the quantum of
maintenance awarded appeared to be just and
reasonable in the facts of the case.
rd
19. The learned Family Court, vide order dated 3
February, 2021 passed in the execution proceedings
(Regular Darkhast No. 139 of 2019 and connected
matters), noted that despite dismissal of the
respondent-husband’s challenge to the interim
maintenance order by the High Court, the
respondent-husband had continued to default and
sought repeated adjournments. The Court observed
that the very purpose of the maintenance order had
been frustrated for nearly two years, and accordingly
directed the respondent-husband to clear at least
50% of the arrears within two weeks, failing which
the Court would proceed to consider striking off his
defence; dismissal of custody and divorce petitions
filed by him and; to issue distress warrant for
recovery of arrears.
8


20. Subsequently, the learned Family Court vide
th
order dated 17 February, 2021 dismissed the
respondent-husband’s divorce and custody petitions
13
by resorting to Order XXXIX Rule 11 of Code of Civil
Procedure and further struck off the respondent-
husband’s defence in the injunction and divorce
proceedings initiated by the appellant-wife, on
account of continued non-compliance with the
interim maintenance order. In the said order, the
learned Family Court recorded the respondent-
husband’s dilatory/dubious conduct and observed
that the respondent-husband had tried his level best
to ensure that the actual fruits of the interim
maintenance order do not reach the appellant-wife
and the two minor children. However, in the interest
of justice, the respondent-husband was granted one
more opportunity to clear the entire arrears within 30
days from the date of the order.
21. Despite the specific directions passed in this
regard, the respondent-husband failed to comply
therewith and, instead, continued to insist upon
hearing of his innumerable pending applications. The

13
As introduced by the Bombay Amendment.
9


learned Family Court, vide subsequent order dated
th
6 December, 2021 observed that the mounting
arrears of maintenance had become the principal
impediment to the progress of trial and the very
object of interim maintenance would stand frustrated
if the order remained merely on paper. Hence, the
Court once again directed the respondent-husband
to deposit at least 50% of the arrears within 30 days,
failing which his pending as well as future
applications were to be treated as disposed of, while
leaving the appellant-wife at liberty to pursue
appropriate execution remedies in accordance with
law.
22. Despite these orders, the respondent-husband
failed to clear the arrears of maintenance, leading the
14
appellant-wife to file another execution petition
seeking payment of arrears of Rs. 31,19,000/- before
the Family Court.
23. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay in
adjudication of the execution proceedings, which had
remained pending for over 24 months due to the non-
posting of a presiding officer in the Family Court, the

14
Regular Darkhast No. 130/2022.
10


15
appellant-wife preferred a writ petition before the
High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India with the following prayers:
“ a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to Call for
records and proceedings pending on file of the
Ld. Family Court and exercise its extra ordinary
writ jurisdiction by issuing a writ of mandamus
or any other writ in the nature of mandamus,
thereby directing the Respondent to forthwith
pay to the petitioner arrears of maintenance
under the order dated 06.02.2019 and
05.02.2020;
b. This hon'ble court be pleased to exercise its
extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and issue writ of
mandamus or any other writ in the nature of
mandamus, thereby directing the Ld. Judge
Family Court, Bandra to hear the RD No.
139/2019 and RD 130/2022 filed by the
Petitioner and pass necessary orders within a
time bound manner and in any event within a
period of 4 weeks;
c. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue such
process including an appropriate warrant in the
event Respondent fails to abide by the orders of
this, Hon'ble Court;
d. That pending the hearing and final disposal of
the writ petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
order and direct the Respondent to forthwith
clear all arrears of school fees of the children
Master PPP and Master QQQ
e. That pending the hearing and final disposal of
the writ petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
order and direct the Respondent to deposit with
this Hon'ble Court the amounts in arrears of
maintenance;
f. That pending the hearing and final disposal of
the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased

15
Writ Petition No. 6328 of 2023.
11


to direct the Respondent to disclose on oath his
income, movable and immovable assets;
g. for interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c),
(d) and (e)”

st
24. Although the High Court order dated 1
vide
August, 2023 initially directed the concerned In-
charge Court at Family Court to pass appropriate
orders within two weeks, the respondent-husband
again resorted to filing multiple Interlocutory
16
Applications seeking vacation of the aforesaid order
and quashing of the maintenance proceedings.
st
25. In pursuance of the order dated 1 August,
2023, the learned Family Court took up the execution
proceedings for hearing, wherein the respondent-
husband assured the Court that he would clear the
arrears of Rs. 1,30,000/- before the next date,
pursuant to which the learned Family Court vide
th
order dated 17 August, 2023 referred the parties to
mediation. However, instead of acting on his
assurance, the respondent-husband moved another
17
application seeking closure of the execution
proceedings which then came to be rejected by the
th
Family Court vide order dated 18 August, 2023. The

16
(I.A. No. 14182/2023, 14509/2023, 14513/2023).
17
Exhibit 6 in Regular Darkhast 139 of 2019.
12


respondent-husband again sought time to clear the
arrears and gave an undertaking to clear the same
within one month.
26. Flouting the said undertaking, the respondent-
husband instead of complying with order of the Court
continued to move further applications seeking
modification of the interim maintenance order. In
particular, the respondent-husband filed W.P.
(Stamp) No. 11634 of 2024 and W.P. No. 6457 of
th
2024 for modification of the order dated 6 February,
2019 and consequential orders of the High Court.
27. Ultimately, the High Court, by the impugned
th
order dated 4 September, 2024 disposed of Writ
Petition No. 6328 of 2023 filed by the appellant-wife
as infructuous, observing that the petition had been
filed when no Presiding Officer was posted in the
Court and that the execution proceedings were now
assigned to a regular Court and could be heard by
the concerned Presiding Officer. The High Court
further declined to issue time-bound directions,
holding that it was not an exceptional case
warranting such directions.
28. It is in this background that the appellant-wife
has approached this Court seeking interference with
13


th
the impugned order dated 4 September, 2024 and
for consequential directions to ensure expeditious
disposal of execution proceedings and recovery of
maintenance arrears payable under the subsisting
interim maintenance order.
Proceedings before this Court: -
29. The instant special leave petition came up for
th
preliminary hearing before this Court on 6
December, 2024, whereupon notice was issued to the
respondent-husband.
th
30. When the matter was taken up on 15 January,
2025 it was submitted by Mr. Devashish Bharuka,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-
wife that she was willing to seek a divorce on terms
fixed by the Court. The respondent-husband had also
applied for a decree of divorce by filing an
18
Interlocutory Application under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
th
31. Vide order dated 25 February, 2025, the
respondent-husband appearing in-person was
directed to file an affidavit of income and assets in
accordance with the law laid down in Rajnesh v.

18
I.A. No. 13394 of 2025.
14


19
Neha and Another within two weeks. On the said
date, serious concerns were raised by the learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant-wife
regarding the respondent-husband filing numerous
complaints and proceedings before the State Bar
Council and criminal Courts not only against the
appellant-wife and children but also against the
advocates representing them. Taking note of the list
of advocates being targeted and the submission that
the respondent-husband was exploiting his
knowledge as a law professional to frustrate the
proceedings and to intimidate the advocates
appearing for the appellant-wife, this Court stayed all
such proceedings pending before the respective
th
forums and Courts by order dated 25 February,
2025 which reads thus:-
“The respondent appears in person and has been
pleading his case. He is directed to file an
affidavit of income and assets in accordance with
the decision of this Court in 'Rajnesh v. Neha
and Anr.', reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 , within
two weeks from today.

List the matter again on 18.03.2025.

Mr. Devashish Bharuka, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner, has pointed
out that the respondent has been repeatedly

19
(2021) 2 SCC 324.
15


filing applications, complaints and various
proceedings not only against his wife and
children, but also against the lawyers
representing them.

Several complaints have been filed before the
Bar Council of Maharashtra, the Bar Council of
India and the Criminal Courts under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C.

Mr. Bharuka, learned senior counsel, further
submitted that respondent being a lawyer
himself, has exploited his knowledge and
expertise to harass everyone connected to his
wife and frustrate all proceedings initiated by his
wife. He has requested for granting stay of all
such proceedings. The details of the complaints
are reproduced hereunder:

16

Having considered the submission and the list
of advocates being targeted, we direct that all
such proceedings noted above before the
respective forums/courts shall remain stayed.”

17


32. In the meanwhile, the appellant-wife filed an
Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 59588 of
2025 with the following prayers:
“ (a) grant an absolute and unconditional stay on
all ongoing and future proceedings related to the
marital dispute, maintenance, custody, and
financial matters between the parties, including
those filed by the Respondent and/or the
Respondent's family members or entities under
their control, and transfer the same to this
Hon'ble Court for uniform adjudication;
(b) stay all further proceedings in the matter
No.CC/Misc. Cases/1505 of 2023 pending
th
before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 64
Court, Esplanade Mumbai qua the Petitioner;
(c) stay all further proceedings in the matter No.
SCC/497/2017 pending before the Ld. Judicial
Magistrate (First Class), Palghar, Maharashtra;
(d) Pass such further and other orders as are
necessary in the interest of justice.”

33. The aforesaid I.A. along with the main matter,
th
was taken up by this Court on 25 March, 2025,
wherein it was noted that the respondent-husband
had deposited a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs in the account of
the elder son and handed over a bank draft of Rs. 10
Lakhs towards arrears of maintenance. It also was
noted that balance maintenance amount of
approximately Rs. 30 Lakhs remained outstanding,
which the respondent-husband undertook to pay
within four weeks. This Court again directed the
18


respondent-husband to file an affidavit of income and
assets and also directed the appellant-wife to file an
updated affidavit containing her latest income and
assets details. Considering the possibility of a final
settlement and the request for a decree of divorce
made by both parties under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, this Court allowed I.A. No.
59588 of 2025, thereby staying all ongoing and future
proceedings related to the marital dispute, custody,
and financial matters between the parties. To ensure
equity, this Court also directed that proceedings
initiated by the appellant-wife be kept in abeyance.
34. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency
of the present proceedings, the respondent-husband,
appearing in person, instituted Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 240 of 2025 before this Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India. In the said writ petition, the
respondent-husband alleged a violation of his
fundamental rights and sought wide-ranging reliefs
in connection with the ongoing matrimonial dispute.
In substance, the respondent-husband sought to
invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to assail and
interdict the ongoing proceedings and orders arising
out of the disputes between the parties. He contended
19


that the appellant-wife had practiced fraud and made
false statements before the Courts below, which,
according to him, had resulted in grave prejudice,
including the denial of anticipatory bail and
infringement of his personal liberty.
35. The aforesaid writ petition was taken up for
nd
hearing by this Court on 22 April, 2025. Upon
perusing the nature of the allegations and the reliefs
claimed, this Court held that the petition was not
maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India. Observing that the allegations and prayers
made therein were frivolous and malicious, this
Court declined the respondent-husband’s request for
permission to withdraw the petition simpliciter.
Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed with
costs of Rs. 5 Lakhs.
36. Subsequently, the respondent-husband
preferred Miscellaneous Application No. 2161 of 2025
in the disposed of writ petition. By way of the said
application, the respondent-husband has sought,
inter alia , a waiver of the costs imposed, and the
expunging of the adverse remarks contained in the
nd
order dated 22 April, 2025.
20


th
37. The main matter was taken up on 10
November, 2025 and on that date the respondent-
husband sought to withdraw his application (I.A. No.
13394 of 2025) seeking dissolution of marriage under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the said application was dismissed as
withdrawn. The appellant-wife, who had earlier
consented to the respondent-husband’s Article 142
application, sought liberty to move an independent
application on her own behalf for the dissolution of
marriage. Furthermore, a chart was submitted by the
appellant-wife indicating that an amount of
Rs.10,80,100/- was still outstanding towards
th
maintenance as of 15 November, 2025 which the
respondent-husband was directed to verify or clear
by the next date.
th
38. Subsequent to the order dated 10 November,
2025, the appellant-wife filed an Interlocutory
20
Application under article 142 of the Constitution of
India with the following prayers:-
“ A. Allow the present application thereby
exercising the powers conferred by the Article
142(1) of the Constitution of India and pass a
decree dissolving the marriage solemnized on
20.01.2010 between the Petitioner and the

20
I.A. No. 308262 of 2025.
21


Respondent on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage;
B. Direct the Respondent as well as his father
Mr. KKK to take necessary steps to transfer the
ownership in respect of the premises being Flat.
No. F- 1501, situated at Octacrest Building,
Lokhandwala complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai
in favour of the Petitioner/Applicant, and to bear
all incidental charges, including stamp duty,
registration fees, and any other related costs;
C. In the alternative to prayer (B) above, direct
the Respondent to provide to the
Petitioner/Applicant an alternate
accommodation of the same square foot area and
in the same locality as the matrimonial home
and to bear all incidental charges, including
stamp duty, registration fees, and any other
related costs;
D. Direct the Respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.
5 crores each in fixed deposits in the names of
the two minor children, Master PPP and Master
QQQ, towards their educational expenses, with
the interest thereon to be utilised by the
Petitioner/Applicant for their education until
they become financially independent, and with
discretionary liberty to the Petitioner/Applicant
to encash the fixed deposits solely for the
purposes of children's higher education;
E. Direct the Respondent to clear the arrears in
relation to educational expenses of both minor
children, namely Master PPP and Master QQQ;
F. Direct the Respondent to bear and pay the
present and future educational expenses of both
minor children, namely Master PPP and Master
QQQ, by depositing all school fees, charges and
ancillary educational costs directly with the
respective educational institutions, as and when
due;
G. Direct the Respondent to forthwith and
hereafter provide complete cooperation for all
present and future documentation needs of both
22


minor children including but not limited to
passports, identity documents, citizenship or
immigration records, school documentation,
affidavits, consents, signatures and any required
appearances before the Passport Authority,
Government departments or foreign consulates;
H. That all civil, criminal and miscellaneous
proceedings filed by either party against the
other including those Petitioner/Applicant, filed
against the Respondent, the
Petitioner/Applicant's family members and her
lawyers in any court or forum in India, be
quashed and/or treated as withdrawn for
securing complete justice and finality to the
dispute;
I. That all incidental interim application, cases
or proceedings filed by the Respondent/any third
parties against the Petitioner and/or her family
members or relatives whether arising from,
connected with or triggered by the matrimonial
dispute be likewise quashed and/or treated as
withdrawn;
J. Direct the concerned courts, tribunals and
authorities to treat all such proceedings
enumerated in Annexure A-6 as terminated, and
clarify that no such proceeding shall be revived
or challenged before any court or authority in
future;
K. Pass a direction that any proceeding of any
nature whatsoever, arising out of or relating to
the matrimonial dispute between the parties or
their family members, whether pending before
any court, tribunal, authority or forum in India
and whether presently known or unknown to
either party, shall stand quashed;
L. Direct the Respondent to pay to the
Petitioner/Applicant a sum of Rupees 1 crore
towards litigation expenses incurred by the
Petitioner/Applicant and her family members in
defending the multiple litigations initiated by the
23


Respondent and his family members over the
past 9 years;
M. Direct the Respondent and/or his family
members to return to the Petitioner/Applicant
her Stridhan as set out in Annexure A-9 hereto,
that is in the custody of the Respondent and/or
his family;
N. Direct the Respondent to pay to the
Petitioner/Applicant any such sum towards
permanent alimony and children's welfare as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit in its discretion and
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case;
O. Grant the Petitioner liberty to apply to this
Hon'ble Court owing to change of circumstances
in relation to the financial support and
educational needs of the minor children;
P. Pass such other and further orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.”

39. The respondent-husband filed a reply to the
aforesaid I.A. wherein following counter prayers were
made:-
“ A. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to decide
and pass appropriate Orders in all pending I.A.s
of the Husband before this Hon'ble Court.
B. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to remand
back the matters to the trial courts with
directions for time bound disposal of all matter/s
between the parties within a period of 3 months,
keeping all contention/s of the parties open
before the trial Court.
C. Alternatively in exercise of A. 142 of the
Constitution the Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to:
i. Grant a decree of divorce to both the
parties.
24


ii. Decide the custody of the children and
relocate them to Mumbai, and hand them
over to him with visitation rights to the
mother.
iii. Direct the Petitioner Wife to vacate and
handover the peaceful possession of the
disputed flat to its rightful owners.
iv. Direct the Petitioner to provide refunds
to the husband for her illegal gains and
mesne profits as stated herein above.
v. Pass appropriate Orders in relation to the
disputed locker.
vi. Direct the Wife to compensate the
Husband to the tune of Rs. 20 Crores for the
mental trauma and loss of reputation
arising from her various false claims against
him, including his resulting illegal detention
and apprehension in CR No. 20/2017.
vii. Quash criminal complaint of 498-A and
Domestic Violence against the Husband as
well his family members and any and all
other civil and criminal complaints pending
before any Court of law or tribunal.
viii. To expunge the criminal records of the
Husband and his family members and to
mask their names in all publications, past
or future and issue appropriate directions
to the registry, search engines, legal portals
and/or other such agencies and portal to
save the privacy and 'right to be forgotten'
of the parties.
ix. To dismiss all her any and all other
claims, past, present or future against him.
x. To direct for initiation of appropriate
action/proceeding/ punishment against
the Petitioner in view of the Order of the
Family Court dated 25.9.2019 giving a
finding of perjury and in view of various
other falsities.
xi. To NOT quash pending offences against
public justice against the wife and her
25


associates, the same being out of
jurisdiction/reach under A.142 of the
Constitution.
D. Pass such further and other orders as are
necessary in the interest of justice.”

40. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, and
considering that both parties have effectively sought
dissolution of the marriage by invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
142 of the Constitution of India albeit on divergent
grounds and claims regarding permanent alimony,
custody of the children, property rights, and
quashing of pending proceedings, we proceeded to
hear the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant-wife and the respondent-husband
appearing in-person at length.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant-wife
41. Shri Amit Rawal, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant-wife, vehemently urged
that the marriage between the parties has
irretrievably broken down and is dead for all practical
purposes. He highlighted that the parties have been
th
living separately since 9 October, 2016, i.e. , for a
period of more than 9 years, and despite multiple
26


attempts at mediation, there are no prospects of
reconciliation.
42. Learned senior counsel drew the Court’s
attention to the conduct of the respondent-husband,
who is also a practicing advocate. It was urged that
instead of discharging his moral and legal obligation
to maintain his wife and minor children, the
respondent-husband has misused his legal
knowledge by filing over 80 legal proceedings against
the appellant-wife, her family members, and even her
legal counsels across various forums.
43. On the aspect of maintenance and financial
conduct, Shri Rawal submitted that the respondent-
husband has not only wilfully and contumaciously
disobeyed the orders of the learned Family Court and
the High Court regarding arrears but has also
indulged in active concealment of his true financial
status. The respondent-husband continues to
nd
remain in non-compliance of the order dated 22
April, 2025 passed by this Court whereby his writ
petition under Article 32 was dismissed with a cost of
Rs.5 Lakhs which has still not been deposited. It was
pointed out that the respondent-husband had been
serving as a Director in several companies. However,
27


he conveniently resigned from the said positions with
the sole intention to evade his financial obligations.
44. Highlighting the issue of welfare and specific
needs of the minor children, learned senior counsel
submitted that the younger son of the parties is a
Canadian citizen, and the respondent-husband’s
cooperation is imperative for the renewal of his
passport, which the respondent-husband has failed
to provide. Furthermore, it was submitted that
although the appellant-wife has been working in
Kolkata to make ends meet, she is in the process of
leaving her job to dedicate her full time and attention
to the elder son, who would soon stand promoted to
th
10 standard. It was urged that this sacrifice by the
mother for the child’s future necessitates adequate
and secure financial support from the father i.e. , the
respondent herein.
45. Finally, the learned senior counsel urged that
the litigation between the parties has become
interlinked and oppressive, dragging in family
members and even lawyers. Therefore, in order to
ensure effective justice and to give a complete quietus
to the dispute, he implored the Court to exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
28


India to quash all pending and connected
proceedings between the parties, dissolve the
marriage, grant permanent alimony, and direct the
transfer of the flat in possession of the appellant-wife
to her name or in alternate, provide an
accommodation of similar size and similar amenities
to the satisfaction of the appellant-wife.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent-husband
46. Per contra , the respondent-husband, appearing
in-person, vehemently and fervently opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the appellant-wife.
His principal grievance was directed against the
multiple criminal cases instituted by the appellant-
wife, specifically under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. He submitted that despite
the FIR containing mere bald allegations without
substantive proof, his prayer for anticipatory bail was
rejected, forcing him to undergo
incarceration/custody for a few days. He described
this experience as traumatic, causing him immense
mental agony and irreparable loss of professional
reputation.
29


47. On the issue of custody and visitation, the
respondent-husband urged that the appellant-wife
has unilaterally taken custody of the children and
has systematically alienated them from him. He
raised specific grievances regarding the relocation of
the children and their schools having been changed
without his knowledge or consent. He contended that
the issues of custody and the children’s welfare are
of paramount consideration and asserted that they
should not be deprived of the love, affection, and
presence of their father in their lives. He claimed that
the appellant-wife continuously interrupts and
monitors even their telephonic conversations,
thereby preventing any meaningful engagement.
48. The respondent-husband further submitted
that the appellant-wife has suppressed material facts
regarding her income. He averred that the appellant-
wife is a highly qualified professional having
substantial income, yet she has projected herself as
destitute to fortify the unjust and inflated claim for
maintenance. He contended that he has already paid
a substantial sum of over Rs. 45 Lakhs to the
appellant-wife and his inability to pay the exorbitant
maintenance awarded was due to financial
30


constraints aggravated by the false and frivolous
litigations instituted by the appellant-wife.
49. The respondent-husband also pressed that
various allegations of falsehood and perjury have
been raised by him in ancillary proceedings and
submitted that action ought to be taken to the logical
conclusion in respect thereof. He contended that
proceedings relating to perjury are pending before
different forums and ought not to be
foreclosed/frustrated without adjudication.
50. On the aspect of providing accommodation to
the appellant-wife and children, the respondent-
husband submitted that the appellant-wife should be
directed to vacate and hand over peaceful possession
of the flat to the rightful owners, asserting that it is
the self-acquired property of his father. He urged that
the keys and possession of the disputed premises
ought to be returned to his father as the appellant-
wife has no legal right to retain possession thereof.
51. Upon a pertinent query raised by the Court, the
respondent-husband admitted that the marriage has
irretrievably broken down and that a decree of
divorce would be appropriate, however, he
vehemently opposed the grant of the consequential
31


sweeping reliefs sought by the appellant-wife under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India. He contended
that the disputes involve multiple pending
proceedings and contested factual issues, and
therefore ought not to be concluded by blanket
directions, particularly when he has raised
substantive counter-claims. He opposed the grant of
any alimony or the flat/accommodation to the
appellant-wife and instead pressed his counter-claim
seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 Crores for
the mental trauma and illegal detention suffered by
him.
Discussion
52. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced by the parties and the
facts and circumstances prevailing on record.
53. It is manifestly clear from the facts narrated
above that the parties have been embroiled in a long-
drawn, bitter matrimonial strife, resulting into
multiplicity of litigations instituted across various
Courts and forums. We may also note that the
respondent-husband has, at every stage, tried to
multiply and complicate the proceedings by filing
innumerable applications and complaints not only
32


against the appellant-wife and her relatives but also
against her advocates. Most of these proceedings
appear to be vindictive and vexatious. This clearly
indicates a hostile, cantankerous and vindictive
approach on part of the respondent-husband. The
cantankerous conduct of the respondent-husband
was taken note of by this Court in the order dated
th 21
25 February, 2025, as noted above .
54. He has not restricted his litigious pursuits to
the Courts alone but has even filed disciplinary
proceedings against the lawyers representing the
appellant-wife before the State Bar Council. The
details of some of such cases/applications are set out
th
in the order dated 25 February, 2025.
55. In light of this relentless, vindictive and
oppressive conduct of the respondent-husband,
which has been thoroughly exposed during the
proceedings before this Court, we can quite foresee
the reason for which the appellant-wife would have
found it extremely difficult to continue her
matrimonial relationship with the respondent-
husband.

21
Para No. 31
33


56. In this background, there is no doubt in the
mind of this Court that the marriage is dead for all
practical purposes and this is a supremely fit case
warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142
of the Constitution of India, not only to annul the
marriage between the parties 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.
57. The respondent-husband has tried to draw
much water out of the fact that the appellant-wife has
shifted the children to Calcutta without permission of
the Court and has thereby, denied the respondent-
husband of the visitation rights. We are of the view
that no oblique motive can be imputed to the
appellant-wife for such a step, as a mother’s primary
concern would definitely be the care, welfare, and
secure upbringing of her children. The relocation,
seen in the context of the intense hostility and
multiple litigations in Mumbai, appears to be nothing
else but a protective measure.
34


58. It is brought to our notice that one of the sons
is a citizen of Canada. It goes without saying that
maintenance, upbringing and the education of the
son would require significant financial resources,
especially considering today’s high cost of living and
education. Thus, even if the appellant-wife is highly
educated and professionally qualified, that by itself
cannot be a reason to absolve the respondent-
husband from his matrimonial, paternal, moral and
legal responsibility to provide for his wife and
children.
59. The appellant-wife has taken a specific plea that
the respondent-husband was earlier a Director in
various companies connected to the family business
and just in order to escape his financial liabilities
towards maintenance, he resigned from these
directorships and enrolled as a lawyer. 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.
60. The appellant-wife is currently occupying a flat
which is allegedly owned by her father-in-law i.e ., the
father of the respondent-husband. The value of the
said flat is stated to be approximately Rs. 5 crores,
35


which is precisely the amount sought by the
appellant-wife during the course of oral hearing so
that she could secure suitable accommodation and
maintain her sons. Though, the respondent-husband
has denied having the financial capacity to pay such
amount, but looking at the background from which
the parties hail, we feel that the attempt of the
respondent-husband to portray himself as lacking
the financial resources to provide accommodation to
his wife and sons is nothing but an artificial veil
sought to be created to escape liability.
61. During the course of the hearing, the appellant-
wife expressed her willingness to relocate to Mumbai
if suitable accommodation or equivalent financial
security is provided. Thus, for balancing the equities,
and to ensure that the appellant-wife and the minor
children are not left destitute upon vacating the
current premises, we deem it appropriate to award a
consolidated sum towards permanent alimony and
child support.
Directions
62. Accordingly, in exercise of our jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in
36


order to do complete justice, we hereby pass the
following directions: -
i. The marriage between the parties, i.e., the
appellant-wife and the respondent-husband
shall stand dissolved.
ii. All pending civil, criminal, and miscellaneous
proceedings filed by either party against each
other, and/or relatives including all FIRs,
complaints, and other applications pending
before any Court or forum, shall stand
quashed/closed. Furthermore, all complaints
filed by the respondent-husband before the Bar
Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the Bar
Council of India, or any criminal Court against
any of the advocates representing the appellant-
wife, as well as any proceedings against the
relatives of the appellant-wife, before all forums
and Courts (civil as well as criminal) shall also
stand closed.
iii. The appellant-wife shall be entitled to absolute
custody of both the sons. However, the
respondent-husband shall be entitled to
visitation rights, which are fixed as below: -
37


a. The respondent-husband shall have
interaction and visitation rights with his sons
on the second weekend of every month in the
city where the children are
residing/studying.
b. The respondent-husband shall be entitled to
have temporary custody of both the sons for
half of their summer and winter vacations as
and when applicable.
iv. The respondent-father shall extend full
cooperation for any actions which may be
required for the renewal/issuance of the
Canadian passport of son Master QQQ. Failure
to do so would entitle the appellant-wife to
institute appropriate proceedings including
those for contempt in this Court.
v. The respondent-husband is directed to pay a
consolidated sum of Rs. 5 Crores to the
appellant-wife towards full and final settlement
of all her claims, including permanent alimony,
maintenance (past, present, and future), child
support, and litigation expenses. This amount
shall be paid by the respondent-husband within
a period of one year from the date of this
38


judgment, either in a single transaction or in
four equal quarterly instalments. It is clarified
that the cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs imposed upon the
respondent-husband, payable to the National
Legal Services Authority (NALSA), while
dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 240 of 2025,
shall stand included within and adjusted
against the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5 Crores.
vi. The appellant-wife shall furnish an undertaking
before this Court, within two weeks from the
date of this judgment stating that, upon
receiving the complete amount of Rs. 5 Crores
as directed above, she shall, within a period of
two weeks thereafter, peacefully vacate and
handover the possession of the flat owned by the
respondent’s father, which she is presently
occupying in Mumbai.
vii. The respondent-husband shall also furnish an
undertaking before this Court, within a period
of four weeks from the date of this judgment
that, he will not file any further civil or criminal
proceedings in any Court or forum against the
appellant-wife, her relatives or her lawyers. Any
39


breach of the above direction shall be viewed
seriously and may invite suitable action.
63. Decree be drawn accordingly.
64. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
65. Copy of this judgment shall be forwarded by the
Registry of this Court to the Courts/Forums referred
to in Para No. 31 of this judgment. Furthermore, in
case any of the cases inter se between the parties are
not mentioned in the said paragraph, in such
situation, the parties shall be at liberty to present this
judgment in the Court/Forum concerned which shall
thereupon close the proceedings forthwith.
66. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

CONTEMPT PETITION(C ) NO(S). 626-627 OF
2025 IN SLP(CIVIL) NO(S). 28311 OF 2024

CONTEMPT PETITION(C ) NO(S). 657-658 OF
2025 IN SLP(CIVIL) NO(S). 28311 OF 2024

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO(S). 2161 OF
2025 IN WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). 240 OF 2025

67. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal @
SLP(Civil) No. 28311 of 2024, these contempt
40


petitions as well as the miscellaneous application
stand disposed of.
68. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.


….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)


...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 07, 2026.


41