Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

Owing to the mediation between Omar Abdullah and Payal Abdullah, the Supreme Court has adjourned hearing in the petition filed by Jammu and Kashmir UT Chief Minister Omar Abdullah.

In August 2024 the Supreme Court had referred the divorce case of former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah, seeking separation from his estranged wife, Payal Abdullah to mediation.

Both parties were asked to approach the Supreme Court Mediation Centre after a joint request was made by their counsels before supreme court.

In July 2024, Top Court had issued notice in the SLP filed by Omar against the Delhi High Court's rejection of his plea in December last year. Then Sibal had told the top court that for the past fifteen years, the marriage was a dead one. He reiterated this stance today as well.

The High Court's division bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vikas Mahajan had upheld the family court's decision, asserting that Omar Abdullah's allegations of cruelty against Payal Abdullah were vague and unacceptable.

Omar and Payal Abdullah entered into matrimony in September 1994 but have been living separately for an extended period. Abdullah's initial divorce plea, filed on August 30, 2016, was rejected by the family court, which cited a lack of evidence supporting the "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage."

The family court had emphasized that Abdullah failed to substantiate claims of "cruelty" or "desertion" and couldn't provide circumstances justifying an inability to sustain the relationship.

Dissatisfied with the family court's decision, Omar Abdullah approached the High Court in September 2016, contending that the marriage had irretrievably broken down since 2009.

Notably, in another ruling, a single-judge bench of the high court increased the maintenance amount payable by Omar Abdullah to Payal Abdullah. Justice Subramonium Prasad mandated a monthly maintenance payment of Rs. 1.5 lakh to Payal and Rs 60,000 each to their two sons during their enrollment in law school.

While enhancing the maintenance amount, the judge observed that though a father was not legally responsible for the college education of major children, Abdullah was still liable to pay Rs 60,000 for the education of his son.

In previous proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the trial court had granted interim maintenance of Rs. 75,000 per month to Payal Abdullah and Rs. 25,000 to their son until he reaches the age of 18.

Case Title: Omar Abdullah vs. Payal Abdullah