Wife Agrees to Divorce After Years of Matrimonial Litigation; Supreme Court Awards ₹35 Lakh Alimony, Dissolves Marriage and Quashes All Pending Cases
Couple Living Separately Since 2022 Faces Multiple Civil and Criminal Cases; Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage and Quashes Entire Matrimonial Litigation
Facts
The proceedings arose from two transfer petitions filed by the wife, Shikha. Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 493 of 2025 sought transfer of criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 148/2022 from Cuttack, Odisha to Girgaon, Mumbai. Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2564 of 2025 sought transfer of DV Misc. Case No. 60/2025, instituted by the mother-in-law, from Cuttack to Mumbai. SHIKHA SHIKHA
The Supreme Court had stayed both proceedings during the pendency of the transfer petitions. SHIKHA
During these proceedings, the husband, Varun Shib Kumar Surekha, filed an application under Article 142 of the Constitution, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and quashing of all pending civil and criminal proceedings arising from the matrimonial dispute. The parties had married on 4 December 2016. SHIKHA
Earlier mediation attempts had failed. However, during subsequent hearings, the wife indicated through counsel that she was willing to part ways, subject principally to an appropriate permanent-alimony settlement. SHIKHA
The husband initially offered ₹15 lakh. Following the Court’s intervention and consideration of the wife’s requirements, including her medical expenses, the amount was increased to ₹35 lakh. SHIKHA
The Supreme Court directed payment of ₹2 lakh immediately and the remaining ₹33 lakh thereafter. The wife ultimately accepted the two demand drafts representing the balance ₹33 lakh. SHIKHA SHIKHA
Both sides then requested the Court to terminate the various proceedings pending between them and their family members.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether the Supreme Court could exercise its extraordinary power under Article 142 in pending transfer petitions to dissolve the marriage without relegating the parties to the Family Court.
- Whether the long separation, failed reconciliation efforts and extensive matrimonial litigation justified bringing the marriage to an end.
- Whether, once the parties agreed to divorce and permanent alimony had been fully settled, the Supreme Court could simultaneously quash all connected civil and criminal proceedings.
- Whether the Court could comprehensively resolve litigation involving not merely the spouses but also their respective family members.
Petitioner/Wife’s Arguments
The wife had originally approached the Supreme Court for transfer of proceedings from Cuttack to Mumbai rather than for dissolution of marriage.
During the proceedings, however, her counsel categorically stated that she was ready and willing to accept divorce by mutual consent. The remaining substantial dispute concerned permanent alimony. SHIKHA
Her counsel emphasized her medical condition, continuing treatment expenses and financial dependence upon her father. It was argued that the husband possessed sufficient financial resources and that the permanent-alimony amount should adequately secure her future requirements. SHIKHA
After receiving the entire ₹35 lakh, the wife personally requested that all cases pending between the parties be quashed. The Supreme Court expressly accepted that submission. SHIKHA
Respondent/Husband’s Arguments
The husband submitted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and sought exercise of Article 142 to dissolve it and terminate all collateral litigation.
He agreed to increase permanent alimony from the original offer of ₹15 lakh to ₹35 lakh as full and final settlement of all claims, although it was submitted that he would need to borrow money and was not financially well-off at that stage. SHIKHA
He also furnished his own list of pending proceedings and requested that all matters identified by either party be quashed so that the settlement would comprehensively end the dispute. SHIKHA
Analysis of the Law
Article 142 and Matrimonial Disputes
The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 142 enables it to pass orders necessary to achieve “complete justice” between parties.
In matrimonial disputes, this power permits the Supreme Court, in appropriate circumstances, to grant divorce directly rather than requiring parties to institute or continue separate proceedings before the Family Court.
More importantly, where matrimonial discord has generated multiple civil and criminal proceedings across different jurisdictions, Article 142 permits the Supreme Court to comprehensively close those proceedings as part of an overall settlement. SHIKHA
The Court explained the practical rationale: requiring parties to approach numerous courts separately for closure of matrimonial proceedings imposes further costs, appearances, paperwork and delay. A comprehensive Article 142 order can therefore advance complete justice. SHIKHA
Existence of Power Versus Exercise of Power
The Court nevertheless emphasized that the existence of Article 142 power does not mean that divorce should automatically be granted whenever requested.
The exercise remains discretionary and must depend upon the particular factual matrix, evaluated objectively while respecting the purpose of the matrimonial statutes. SHIKHA
The Court must particularly satisfy itself that the settlement is genuine, voluntary and free from coercion, and appropriately addresses matters such as alimony, maintenance and child custody wherever applicable. SHIKHA
Precedent Analysis
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
This was the principal authority.
The Supreme Court reiterated that it can exercise Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent without requiring parties to return to the trial court.
It can simultaneously deal with other pending civil and criminal proceedings in accordance with the matrimonial settlement. SHIKHA
The judgment recognizes that matrimonial disputes frequently generate multiple proceedings before different courts and that compelling parties to separately seek closure of each proceeding can unnecessarily perpetuate litigation. SHIKHA
Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal
The Court referred to Amit Kumar regarding the statutory waiting period and the need to ensure that the parties have had adequate time to reflect before permanently terminating the marriage.
The underlying consideration is whether the decision to separate represents a conscious and considered decision rather than an impulsive dissolution. SHIKHA
Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur
The judgment referred to the factors identified in Amardeep Singh while examining whether the circumstances justify dissolution of marriage and whether a genuine settlement has been reached, including settlement of alimony, maintenance and custody issues. SHIKHA
Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda
The Supreme Court reiterated that divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 is not available as a matter of right merely because one spouse applies for it.
The Court must itself be satisfied that the marriage has reached a genuine deadlock and there is no realistic possibility of the parties resuming marital life. SHIKHA
Relevant considerations include:
- nature of allegations exchanged;
- orders passed in pending proceedings;
- duration of marriage;
- period of separation;
- attempts at reconciliation;
- cumulative effect of disputes;
- socio-economic circumstances;
- education and age of the parties; and
- arrangements necessary following separation. SHIKHA
Court’s Reasoning
The parties had married on 4 December 2016 and had been living separately since 2022.
By the time the matter reached final hearing, an extensive web of litigation had developed between the spouses and their family members. SHIKHA
The judgment’s tables on pages 10–13 record numerous proceedings, including criminal complaints, divorce proceedings, DV proceedings, a Section 498A case, quashing proceedings, appeals, transfer petitions and a perjury application. SHIKHA SHIKHA SHIKHA
The Supreme Court had itself attempted reconciliation and mediation, but those efforts had previously failed.
Eventually, however:
- both spouses agreed to part ways;
- the wife agreed to divorce by mutual consent;
- permanent alimony was settled at ₹35 lakh;
- the entire amount was paid;
- the wife personally accepted the demand drafts for the balance amount; and
- both sides sought termination of the collateral proceedings.
The Court concluded that the marriage had “come to a dead end” and there was no possibility of reconciliation. In those circumstances, requiring the parties to continue separate matrimonial and criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. SHIKHA
Accordingly, the Court exercised Article 142 to give finality to the entire matrimonial dispute.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the husband’s Article 142 application.
Since both parties agreed to divorce and the husband had paid the agreed ₹35 lakh permanent alimony in full and final settlement, the Court dissolved the marriage solemnized on 4 December 2016. SHIKHA
The Court further directed that all cases enumerated in the judgment, as well as any other civil or criminal proceedings filed inter se between the parties, stand quashed. SHIKHA
Significantly, it also directed the parties not to institute any fresh cases against each other. SHIKHA
The transfer petitions were consequently disposed of and the Registry was directed to draw up the divorce decree. SHIKHA
Case Details
Case: Shikha w/o Varun Surekha @ Shikha d/o Sharadkumar Raniwala v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Numbers: Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 493 of 2025 with Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2564 of 2025
Citation: 2026 INSC 1060 SHIKHA
Judges: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
Date: 28 September 2026
Result: Marriage dissolved under Article 142 after payment of ₹35 lakh permanent alimony; all inter se civil and criminal proceedings quashed; parties directed not to file fresh cases against each other; transfer petitions disposed of.
