The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India now aims for finality in matrimonial cases. Since Shilpa Sailesh (1 May 2023), it can dissolve an irretrievably broken marriage under Article 142. It fixes permanent alimony on needs and means, not to equalise wealth (Rinku Baheti, December 2024), and prefers one-time settlements (Parvin Kumar Jain, December 2024).
At the same time, the Court has read maintenance rights for women broadly and looked hard at vague 498A complaints that pull in a husband’s whole family. This guide sets out those trends with the judgments behind them, each linked to its record.
Last updated: 28 September 2026. Benches corrected against the signed judgments.
Key takeaways
- Article 142 divorce is now an established route in the Supreme Court. 267 Supreme Court records in the eCourtsIndia index mention both irretrievable breakdown and Article 142, most of them transfer petitions and civil appeals.
- Alimony is about security, not equalisation. Rinku Baheti (December 2024) fixed ₹12 crore and said permanent alimony is not meant to equalise the parties’ wealth.
- Maintenance rights are read broadly. Divorced Muslim women can seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, now Section 144 BNSS (Mohd. Abdul Samad, July 2024).
- Omnibus 498A complaints are being quashed where allegations against relatives are vague (Achin Gupta, Dara Lakshmi Narayana, Geddam Jhansi).
- Transfer petitions dominate the matrimonial records we found: 2,331 civil transfer petitions in eCourtsIndia’s Supreme Court records mention marriage or divorce (searched 23 September 2026).
What kinds of matrimonial cases reach the Supreme Court?
Most matrimonial matters in the Supreme Court are not grand appeals on the meaning of cruelty. They are transfer petitions, settlement applications and appeals against orders on maintenance or quashing. A transfer petition asks the Supreme Court to move a case from a court in one state to a court in another. In civil and matrimonial cases it is filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A search of the Supreme Court records on eCourtsIndia shows the shape of the docket.
| Search on Supreme Court records | Records | What dominates |
|---|---|---|
| Civil transfer petitions mentioning marriage, divorce or the Hindu Marriage Act | 2,331 | 1,931 disposed, most by transfer or settlement |
| Records mentioning “irretrievable breakdown” and Article 142 | 267 | 116 civil transfer petitions, 71 civil appeals, 29 criminal transfer petitions |
| Records mentioning Section 498A | 442 | 323 criminal appeals |
Among the Article 142 records that carry a decision year, 2023 is the peak year, the year the Constitution Bench settled the Court’s power to dissolve a broken marriage. Transfer petitions are the other big stream. They are usually filed by a wife asking for a divorce or maintenance case to be moved to the city where she lives, and many end with the parties sent to mediation and returning with a settlement.
Can the Supreme Court grant a divorce without both spouses’ consent?
Article 142 lets the Supreme Court pass any order needed to do “complete justice” in a case before it. In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, decided on 1 May 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Court can use this power to dissolve a marriage that has irretrievably broken down, even where one spouse does not consent. It can also waive the waiting period that normally applies to divorce by mutual consent. The bench set out the factors it will weigh, including the length of separation, the period of cohabitation, the pending litigation between the parties and the arrangements for the spouse and children.
The practical effect is that one Supreme Court order can now do several things at once: dissolve the marriage, record a financial settlement, and close the connected criminal, domestic-violence and maintenance proceedings, even when they are spread across states. For couples who have lived apart for years, it can be a faster route than a contested divorce in a family court. It is a power for the Supreme Court alone; family courts and High Courts still apply the grounds in the marriage statutes.
How does the Supreme Court decide permanent alimony?
Two December 2024 judgments set the tone on money.
In Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda (2024 INSC 1014), decided on 19 December 2024 by a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal, the Court dissolved the marriage and fixed permanent alimony at ₹12 crore. It said alimony is meant to secure a dignified standard of living for the dependent spouse, not to equalise the fortunes of two people or to punish the other side. The same judgment warned against using criminal provisions such as Section 498A as a lever in what are really financial negotiations.
In Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain (2024 INSC 961), decided on 10 December 2024 by Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, the Court granted divorce and fixed a one-time permanent alimony of ₹5 crore for the wife, and ₹1 crore for the son. It listed the factors courts should consider: the status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the wife and children, their qualifications and employment, independent income and assets, the standard of living during the marriage, sacrifices made for the family, litigation costs, and the husband’s capacity and liabilities. The figure has to be fair to both sides, not penal to the husband.
Earlier the same year, in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (15 July 2024, 2024 INSC 530), Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra fixed ₹2 crore as permanent alimony after weighing the parties’ employment, standard of living and liabilities. For Hindu marriages, the statutory basis for permanent alimony is Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The trend these judgments capture is the preference for a single, full-and-final amount over years of monthly payments and enforcement petitions. It gives the wife certainty and the husband a defined end to the liability.
Who can claim maintenance, and under which law?
The ground rules come from Rajnesh v. Neha (4 November 2020). Both spouses must file an affidavit disclosing their assets and liabilities. Maintenance runs from the date of the application, and amounts ordered in parallel cases are adjusted against each other.
On the right to maintenance itself, the Court has been expansive.
- Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (2024 INSC 506) was decided on 10 July 2024 by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, in separate concurring opinions. It held that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 does not take that secular remedy away.
- Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto (2025 INSC 55) was decided on 10 January 2025 by a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. The husband held a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, an order under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act asking a spouse to resume living together. The Court held that such a decree does not by itself disentitle a wife from maintenance under Section 125. Whether she had sufficient reason to live apart is still to be judged on the facts.
Read together with the alimony cases, the direction is consistent: protect the dependent spouse’s right to support, then settle the amount on the evidence rather than on the size of the other side’s fortune.
When does the Supreme Court quash a 498A (Section 85 BNS) case?
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, punishes cruelty to a married woman by her husband or his relatives. Section 86 defines cruelty, and our IPC to BNS section mapping lists the other changes. The Court has repeatedly said the provision protects real victims, and has equally made clear that it will quash cases built on general allegations against every relative in the household.
- Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024 INSC 369), decided on 3 May 2024 by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, quashed a 498A FIR as an abuse of process. The marriage had already broken down. The Court also suggested that the legislature look again at the equivalent provisions of the new criminal code before they came into force.
- Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024 INSC 953), decided on 10 December 2024 by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh, quashed proceedings against the husband and his relatives. The complaint made vague, general allegations without specific instances, and the Court cautioned against the growing tendency to rope in the whole family.
- Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana (2025 INSC 160), decided on 7 February 2025 by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh, quashed 498A and dowry proceedings against the husband’s relatives for the same reason: omnibus allegations with no specific role attributed to them.
The common test is specificity. Where a complaint names who did what and when, the Court leaves it to trial. Where it lists relatives without saying what each of them did (an omnibus complaint), the Court is increasingly willing to end the case early.
The Court has also slowed arrests. In Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal (22 July 2025, 2025 INSC 883), a bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih directed that safeguards framed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on 13 June 2022 remain in effect and be implemented. For 498A cases covered by those guidelines, there is a two-month cooling period after the FIR or complaint with no arrest, and the matter goes to a Family Welfare Committee.
For the numbers behind 498A across all courts, including how few cases end in conviction, see 498A by the Numbers.
Can domestic violence proceedings be quashed?
An application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeks civil reliefs such as protection, residence and monetary orders from a Magistrate. In Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025 INSC 734), decided on 19 May 2025 by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, the Court held that a High Court can entertain a petition to quash such proceedings under its inherent powers. Those powers sit in Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court should do so with great caution, because the Act is welfare legislation meant to give women quick relief. Interference should be limited to cases of gross illegality or clear abuse.
A domestic-violence order does not end a marriage. If you are in that position, our explainer on why a DV case still needs a separate divorce walks through the difference.
Key Supreme Court matrimonial judgments at a glance (2023 to 2025)
| Judgment | Decided | Bench | What it settled |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan | 1 May 2023 | Five-judge Constitution Bench | Article 142 divorce on irretrievable breakdown; waiver of the mutual-consent waiting period |
| Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana | 3 May 2024 | J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. | 498A FIR quashed as abuse of process |
| Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana | 10 July 2024 | B.V. Nagarathna and A.G. Masih, JJ. | Divorced Muslim women can claim under s.125 CrPC (now s.144 BNSS) |
| Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel | 15 July 2024 | Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. | ₹2 crore permanent alimony as a one-time settlement |
| Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain | 10 December 2024 | Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale, JJ. | Factors for permanent alimony; ₹5 crore one-time settlement for the wife and ₹1 crore for the son |
| Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana | 10 December 2024 | B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ. | Vague 498A allegations against relatives quashed |
| Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda | 19 December 2024 | B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. | Alimony secures the dependent spouse; it does not equalise wealth |
| Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto | 10 January 2025 | Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, and Sanjay Kumar, J. | Restitution decree does not automatically bar maintenance |
| Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana | 7 February 2025 | B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ. | Omnibus 498A and dowry allegations against relatives quashed |
| Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal | 19 May 2025 | Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. | DV Act proceedings can be quashed, but only with great caution |
| Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal | 22 July 2025 | B.R. Gavai, CJI, and Augustine George Masih, J. | Allahabad High Court 498A safeguards (two-month cooling period, Family Welfare Committees) to be implemented |
What this means if you are in a matrimonial case
These trends describe how the Court has decided, not how any particular case will go. Every matter turns on its own facts and evidence, and you should take advice on your situation from an advocate enrolled with your State Bar Council. With that caveat, a few practical points follow from the judgments.
- Expect mediation. Transfer petitions and appeals are often sent to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre before anything is decided on merits. A realistic settlement proposal matters more than a long list of allegations.
- Think in terms of one complete settlement. If the parties agree, an Article 142 order can close every connected case across every state. Draft the settlement so that nothing is left out.
- On money, bring evidence. The Parvin Kumar Jain factors reward clear proof of income, assets, needs and the standard of living during the marriage.
- On criminal complaints, specifics decide. A complaint that sets out who did what, and when, is treated very differently from one that names the whole family in general terms.
To see where your own case stands, search it on eCourtsIndia by CNR or party name; the litigant search guide explains how. For the wider picture of family litigation in India’s lower courts, see the Indian Family Property Dispute Index 2026. If you need a lawyer, the verified advocate directory lists advocates whose enrolment has been checked.
Methodology and limitations
We ran full-text searches over Supreme Court records in the eCourtsIndia index on 23 September 2026 (court level SC) for three sets: civil transfer petitions mentioning marriage, divorce or the Hindu Marriage Act; records mentioning irretrievable breakdown together with Article 142; and records mentioning Section 498A. We then selected reported judgments, mostly from 2023 to 2025, that are widely treated as settling a point of matrimonial law.
Parties come from each case’s Supreme Court record. Dates, benches and neutral citations come from the signed judgment itself. A case record’s judge field can show the judges who sat on the day the judgment was pronounced, which is not always the bench that heard and decided the case. We describe what the Court held, not how any Justice is inclined, and we do not score or rank judges.
Counts are indicative because they depend on the text indexed for each record. Limitations: counts are records (one CNR each), not people or judgments. “Mentions” means the indexed text matches the search terms; it is not a finding that the Court used Article 142 or Section 498A in that case. Many special leave petitions are dismissed with short orders that may not contain the search terms, so the totals are likely to undercount.
Every case above links to its record on eCourtsIndia, where the judgment PDF can be downloaded for ₹2 (September 2026). It is the court’s published PDF, not a certified copy. Searching is free. Tracking a case costs ₹5 a month, with alerts at ₹0.50 per channel (September 2026). See current prices on the pricing page.
Corrections and updates
An earlier version of this post profiled individual Justices. We withdrew that approach on 23 September 2026 because outcomes in family cases depend on facts, settlements and the law. That version also misdated some judgments and named the wrong bench for others.
On 28 September 2026 we corrected the benches for Rinku Baheti and Geddam Jhansi against the signed judgments. We gave the full two-judge bench in Achin Gupta and removed an unverified statement about a review petition in Mohd. Abdul Samad. We also added Rajnesh v. Neha, Kiran Jyot Maini and Shivangi Bansal.
This article summarises public judgments for general information. It is not legal advice. Being named in a court record does not mean a person did anything wrong.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the Supreme Court grant a divorce if one spouse does not agree?
Yes, but only the Supreme Court can do this, and only in limited cases. In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (1 May 2023), a five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Court can use Article 142 to dissolve a marriage that has irretrievably broken down, even if one spouse objects. It weighs factors such as the length of separation, pending cases and provision for the spouse and children. Family courts and High Courts still apply the grounds in the marriage laws. You can read the case record.
How does the Supreme Court decide permanent alimony?
There is no fixed formula. In Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain (10 December 2024, 2024 INSC 961), the Supreme Court listed eight factors: the status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the wife and children, their qualifications and employment, independent income and assets, the standard of living during the marriage, sacrifices made for the family, litigation costs, and the husband’s capacity and liabilities. The Court said these are a guide, not a straitjacket. The judgment record is on eCourtsIndia.
Is alimony meant to equalise the wealth of husband and wife?
No. In Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda (19 December 2024, 2024 INSC 1014), a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal said it had serious reservations about parties seeking alimony as an equalisation of wealth. The Court fixed ₹12 crore to secure a dignified standard of living for the dependent spouse, not to match the other spouse’s fortune. The amount turns on evidence of needs and means. Open the case record for the judgment.
When will the Supreme Court quash a 498A case against the husband’s relatives?
When the complaint makes general allegations against the husband’s relatives without saying what each person did, or when the case is an abuse of process. Recent examples are Achin Gupta (3 May 2024), Dara Lakshmi Narayana (10 December 2024) and Geddam Jhansi (7 February 2025). Where a complaint sets out who did what and when, the Court leaves it to trial. Section 498A IPC is now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. See 498A by the Numbers for data across all courts.
Can a divorced Muslim woman claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
Yes. In Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (10 July 2024), Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih held that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 does not take that remedy away. Section 125 CrPC was replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. The case record has the judgment.
How can I follow a matrimonial case in the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court’s own website, sci.gov.in, shows case status and judgments free; our guide explains how to check Supreme Court case status. eCourtsIndia, a private platform that is not part of the Government’s eCourts project, also lets you search Supreme Court cases free by case number or party name. The litigant search guide explains party-name searches. As of September 2026, downloading a judgment costs ₹2 and tracking a case costs ₹5 a month, with alerts at ₹0.50 per channel (set hearing alerts). Downloads are the court’s published PDFs, not certified copies.
Sources
- Supreme Court of India: case status and judgments. Checked 28 September 2026.
- India Code (Government of India): official text of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the BNS and the BNSS. Checked 28 September 2026.
- Indian Kanoon: Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, 2024 INSC 1014 (19 December 2024). Checked 28 September 2026. Signed by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal; ₹12 crore permanent alimony.
- Indian Kanoon: Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 INSC 160 (7 February 2025). Checked 28 September 2026. Signed by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh.
- Indian Kanoon: Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 INSC 961 (10 December 2024). Checked 28 September 2026.
- Indian Kanoon: Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 INSC 530 (15 July 2024). Checked 28 September 2026.
- Indian Kanoon: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (1 May 2023). Checked 28 September 2026.
- Indian Kanoon: Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 369 (3 May 2024). Checked 28 September 2026.
- Indian Kanoon: Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC 506 (10 July 2024). Checked 28 September 2026.
- Indian Kanoon: Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC 953 (10 December 2024). Checked 28 September 2026.
- Indian Kanoon: Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto, 2025 INSC 55 (10 January 2025). Checked 28 September 2026.
- Indian Kanoon: Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 INSC 734 (19 May 2025). Checked 28 September 2026.
- Indian Kanoon: Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal, 2025 INSC 883 (22 July 2025). Checked 28 September 2026.
- Supreme Court Observer: Court frames comprehensive guidelines on maintenance (Rajnesh v. Neha) (27 November 2020). Checked 28 September 2026.
- LiveLaw: Supreme Court endorses Allahabad High Court 498A guidelines (Shivangi Bansal) (22 July 2025). Checked 28 September 2026.
- IndiaCode by eCourtsIndia: Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (permanent alimony and maintenance). Checked 28 September 2026.
- eCourtsIndia: Pricing (downloads, tracking and per-channel alerts). Checked 28 September 2026.