NEHA SANDEEP TODI v. SANDEEP KHEMRAJ TODI
Exercise of Article 142 Powers to Dissolve Marriage and Quash Multiplicity of Vexatious Litigations in Cases of Irretrievable Breakdown and Oppressive Conduct.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 334
Decision Date: 07-04-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 142; Constitution of India, Article 32; Constitution of India, Article 227; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 340, Section 156(3)); Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 498A); Advocates Act, 1961; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XXXIX Rule 11)
- Facts: The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were embroiled in a decade-long matrimonial dispute involving multiple litigations across various forums. Despite several court orders, the respondent, a practicing advocate, failed to pay interim maintenance for the wife and their two minor sons, leading to mounting arrears. The respondent initiated over 80 legal proceedings, including disciplinary complaints against the wife's advocates and criminal cases against her relatives, which the court characterized as vindictive and vexatious. During the pendency of the appeal, both parties sought dissolution of marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, though they differed on the consequential terms regarding alimony, custody, and property.
- Procedural Posture: The matter reached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that had dismissed the wife's writ petition for expeditious execution of maintenance arrears as infructuous. The Supreme Court also dealt with contempt petitions and a frivolous Article 32 writ petition filed by the husband.
- Issue: Whether the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down, and whether the Supreme Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and quash all inter se proceedings to ensure complete justice.
- Holding: Yes. The Court held that the marriage was dead for all practical purposes and that this was a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant a divorce and terminate all oppressive litigations.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the intense hostility, the respondent’s "cantankerous" conduct in filing numerous frivolous cases against family and lawyers, and the nine-year separation proved the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Court observed that the husband used his legal expertise as a "subterfuge" to evade maintenance obligations and harass the wife. To provide a "complete quietus" and protect the welfare of the minor children, the Court invoked Article 142 to dissolve the marriage, award a consolidated permanent alimony of Rs. 5 Crores, grant absolute custody to the mother, and quash all pending civil and criminal proceedings between the parties and their advocates.
🔒 For Members Only