The Supreme Court granted divorce to a couple, observing that their decade-long dispute had “crossed all limits” and assumed the proportions of a “matrimonial battle of Mahabharata”, while awarding ₹5 crore as permanent alimony to the wife and rejecting the husband’s plea about her substantial earnings.

The court also directed the woman, who is currently living in Calcutta with her minor son, to return possession of a three-bedroom apartment in Mumbai — valued at ₹5 crore and owned by her matrimonial family — to her estranged husband.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict, strongly criticising the husband — a lawyer — for his “relentless” and “vindictive” conduct.

The court observed that nearly 80 cases had been filed across various legal forums and statutory bodies, largely by the husband, targeting not only his wife but also the lawyers representing her.

“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 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 the part of the respondent-husband,” Justice Sandeep Mehta observed.

The court observed that the husband had even initiated disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar Council against the lawyers representing the wife.

“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,” said the court.

The bench noted that the husband had repeatedly emphasised that his wife had shifted the children to Calcutta without the matrimonial court’s permission, thereby denying him visitation rights.

We are of the view that no oblique motive can be imputed to the wife for such a step, as a mother’s primary concern would definitely be the care, welfare, and secure upbringing of her children, said the court.

The relocation appears to be a protective measure, the court said.

The husband was directed to pay ₹5 crore to his wife as the final settlement of all her claims.

This amount shall be paid by the husband within a period of one year from the date of the judgment, either in a single transaction or in four equal quarterly instalments.

The court directed the wife to submit an undertaking within two weeks, stating that she would hand over the Mumbai flat within two weeks of receiving ₹5 crore.