Don't behave like a ‘maharaja’, SC tells warring couple

The Supreme Court on Thursday reprimanded a couple locked in a matrimonial battle, asking them not to behave like a "maharaja" as democracy has been prevailing for over 75 years as it also outlined the clash of egos in the case.

The observations were directed at one half of the warring couple who reportedly belongs to a royal clan.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh asked the counsel for the husband and wife to talk to them during the day and inform it about their intentions.

"What kind of statements are being made that mediation has failed? Don't behave like a maharaja or raja. Seventy-five years of democracy have (already) passed," the Bench said and warned if no settlement was reached through mediation, it won't shy away from passing a "harsh" order within three days.

The woman, who lives in Gwalior, claimed she belongs to a highly-reputed family whose ancestor was an admiral in the navy of Chhatarpati Shivaji Maharaj and declared the ruler of Konkan region.

The husband, on the other hand, belongs to a family of Army officers and runs an educational institution in Madhya Pradesh.

A 1951 model antique hand-made classic Rolls Royce car, a single model till date and currently valued at over Rs 2.5 crore, ordered by country's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru for the erstwhile maharani of Baroda, has become the bone of contention in the dispute.

The counsel appearing for the parties informed the court that the dispute was cantered largely over money.

Justice Kant said, "We know it is only due to ego that the settlement has not been reached. If the dispute is cantered over money, that can be taken care of by the court but for that the parties have to reach a consensus." The Bench posted the hearing next week.

On April 22, senior advocate R Basant, who was appointed to mediate the couple's dispute, informed the Bench about its failure to reach an amicable settlement.

He requested the Bench for "one last effort" to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties.

The woman has claimed that the estranged husband and his family harassed her with dowry demands of the Rolls Royce car and a flat in Mumbai. However, the man has refuted the charge.

"When the demands of the respondents were not met, they started denying the marriage and making false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner and started assassinating her character," the woman's plea said.

The husband lodged a case of cheating and forgery against the estranged wife, her parents and relatives in preparation of a marriage certificate whereas the woman lodged a case for dowry harassment and cruelty. Her FIR was quashed by the high court, which called it "afterthought".

Assailing the high court order of December 5, 2023, she said, "... it is clear that the respondent 1 (husband) and 2 (father of husband) have shown their fascination for the Rolls Royce car belonging to the father of the petitioner (woman) and in that context they expected to receive the said car in gift and with regard to a flat in Mumbai and non-fulfilment of this dowry demand was precisely the reason for not taking the petitioner to her matrimonial home."