Article 142 invoked to dissolve marriage for irretrievable breakdown and quash all interconnected vexatious proceedings.

The appellant (wife) and respondent (husband) married in 2010 and separated in 2016

The parties have been embroiled in a decade-long legal battle involving multiple petitions for divorce, custody, and maintenance

In 2019, the Family Court awarded the appellant interim maintenance of ₹80,000 per month, which the respondent consistently defaulted on, leading to significant arrears

The respondent, a practicing advocate, initiated over 80 legal proceedings against the appellant, her family, and her legal counsels across various forums, including disciplinary complaints before the Bar Council

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appellant’s writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of execution proceedings as infructuous

Both parties eventually moved the Supreme Court seeking a decree of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution, although the respondent later attempted to withdraw his consent

The Court primarily invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decrees or orders as are necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause or matter

It relied on the doctrine of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a ground for dissolution in exercise of plenary powers

The Court also adhered to the principles of "welfare of the child" in determining custody and the guidelines for assessing financial capacity for maintenance as established in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021)

The Court observed that the marriage was "dead for all practical purposes" due to nearly nine years of separation and intense acrimony

It heavily criticized the respondent’s conduct, characterizing his filing of 80+ cases as "vindictive, vexatious, and oppressive"

The Court found that the respondent misused his legal expertise to intimidate the appellant’s lawyers and frustrate the recovery of maintenance

Regarding financial capacity, the Court rejected the respondent's plea of destitution, noting that his resignation from family business directorships was a "subterfuge" to evade matrimonial obligations

The Court reasoned that given the background of the parties and the high cost of education for the children (one of whom is a Canadian citizen), a substantial consolidated settlement was necessary to ensure the appellant and children were not left destitute upon vacating the shared matrimonial home

The Court directed: (i) The marriage stands dissolved

(ii) All pending civil, criminal, and disciplinary proceedings (including FIRs and Bar Council complaints) against either party, their relatives, or lawyers are quashed

(iii) Absolute custody of the two sons remains with the mother, with specific visitation rights for the father

(iv) The respondent must pay a consolidated sum of ₹5 Crores as full and final settlement for alimony and child support within one year

(v) Upon receipt of the full amount, the appellant shall vacate the matrimonial home

(vi) Both parties must furnish undertakings to file no further proceedings

The appeal was disposed of with a decree drawn accordingly