Mumbai: The Supreme Court dismissed three special leave petitions filed by Poonam Shroff, seeking to challenge a Bombay high court order in a decade-long high stake divorce battle with estranged husband Jaidev Shroff, global CEO of UPL Ltd, and directed her to pay Rs 5 lakh to an orphanage in Maharashtra run by the state. “It is a classic case where a matrimonial dispute proceeded at a snail’s pace on account of the egos of the parties and is a mirror to the fact that it can reach these heights,” said Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria in a recent order.The SC three-Judge bench of then CJI Bhushan Gavai, Justices N V Anjaria and Alok Aradhe, on Aug 29 granted a final three-month extension for the Mumbai family court to decide the pending divorce petition. The family court requested the HC registry for a nine-month extension to decide the dispute.She sought permanent alimony of Rs 1,000 crore in the divorce proceedings.The SC, after hearing senior counsel Shyam Diwan and Vikas Singh for the wife, and senior counsel AM Singhvi with advocate Sameer Tapia for the husband, said the “parties seem more interested in multiplying litigation than putting an end to the saga.” The reasons for its observation, the top court said, were varied and based on facts narrated by the HC Judge who “painstakingly traced the history of the litigation” starting from a divorce petition filed by the husband in 2015. The SC appreciated the painstaking order of the HC Judge.She challenged an order passed by Justice Manjusha Deshpande of the HC, who found no reason to interfere with a January 2025 order of the Mumbai family court at Bandra and dismissed her petition seeking consolidation of proceedings. She wanted to club her maintenance plea with his divorce petition. The family court declined, and the HC said the family court made no error.The HC said the evidence in the divorce proceedings filed by the husband substantially progressed, whereas the proceedings for maintenance filed by the wife were still at an initial stage. “The issues involved in both the proceedings are governed by different enactments. Even the cause of action cannot be said to be the same,” and held that it would thus “be undesirable and impractical to make an order for consolidation.“While dismissing her plea against the HC order, the SC said, “It appears from the record that the petitioner seems to be more interested in protracting the proceedings under the guise of espousing her justified cause or right, rather than taking the dispute to its logical end and the consequential fruits of such order, if any.”The SC gave her two weeks to make the payment, adding, “failing which the State shall be at liberty to recover” it from her as arrears of land revenue.Divorce proceedings filed in 2015• Oct 6, 2015: Husband filed divorce proceedings before Bandra Family court in Mumbai• Matter reached SC on more than one occasion over challenges to various orders in the pending divorce proceedings• Dec 3, 2021: SC directed family court to expedite the divorce hearing• July 7, 2023: Wife filed a plea for maintenance before the Family Court• March 18, 2024: SC again directed Mumbai FC to decide the divorce plea in six months; the same day, the wife filed an application seeking permanent alimony of Rs 1,000 croresin the divorce proceedings.
