Supreme Court dissolves Omar Abdullah’s marriage

Arabian Post Staff -Dubai

The Supreme Court has granted Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and Payal Abdullah a divorce after the estranged couple resolved their long-running matrimonial dispute through mediation.
A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe disposed of Abdullah’s appeal on Friday after being told that the parties had reached an amicable settlement and wanted their marriage formally dissolved.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Abdullah, informed the court that all outstanding disputes had been settled. He said both parties had “embraced freedom” and requested the Bench to grant the divorce, adding that related proceedings would be withdrawn.

The court agreed to dissolve the marriage in accordance with the settlement reached during mediation. The order brought an end to a legal battle that had continued for more than a decade and followed years of separation between the couple.

Abdullah had approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court rejected his divorce plea in December 2023. The High Court had upheld a family court decision that found he had failed to establish the allegations of cruelty and desertion on which his petition was based.

During the hearing of Abdullah’s appeal in August 2024, the Supreme Court referred the dispute to its mediation centre after lawyers representing both sides sought an opportunity to explore a negotiated settlement. The Bench then hearing the matter directed the mediation process to be completed expeditiously.

The negotiations eventually produced an agreement covering the dissolution of the marriage and the withdrawal or closure of connected litigation. Details of the financial or other terms incorporated in the settlement were not disclosed during the brief hearing.

The Supreme Court exercised its constitutional powers to give effect to the agreement. Article 142 allows the court to pass orders necessary to deliver complete justice in matters before it, including matrimonial cases where a marriage has broken down irretrievably but the statutory grounds for divorce remain disputed.

Abdullah and Payal married in 1994 and have two sons. They had been living separately for about 17 years by the time the dispute was settled. Abdullah had sought divorce on the grounds that the marriage had broken down and that prolonged separation made reconciliation impossible.

His original petition was dismissed by a family court in 2016. The court held that the accusations made against Payal were vague and that Abdullah had not produced sufficient evidence to prove cruelty or desertion under the applicable matrimonial law.

The Delhi High Court later reached a similar conclusion. Its Division Bench said the evidence did not demonstrate conduct severe enough to constitute cruelty and found no basis to interfere with the family court’s findings.

The High Court had also noted that irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not, by itself, a statutory ground for divorce under the laws governing the couple’s marriage. Such relief could, however, be granted by the Supreme Court through its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.

Separately, Payal and the couple’s sons had pursued proceedings concerning maintenance. A Delhi court had earlier directed Abdullah to pay monthly maintenance to Payal and financial support to one of their sons until he completed his education.

The maintenance dispute had generated further litigation over the amount payable and the financial circumstances of the parties. The settlement placed before the Supreme Court indicated that these connected matters would no longer continue independently.

The phrase used by Sibal during Friday’s hearing drew attention because it presented the agreement as a mutual decision rather than a victory for either party. The Bench accepted the submission without revisiting the allegations examined by the lower courts.

The ruling marks the completion of a shift from contested litigation to consensual resolution. It also reflects the Supreme Court’s practice of encouraging mediation in prolonged family disputes, particularly where the parties have lived apart for many years and continued proceedings are unlikely to restore the relationship.