The Supreme Court on Thursday said the strict provisions of law were for the welfare of women and not means to "chastise, threaten, domineer or extort" their husbands.

Justices B V Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal observed a Hindu marriage was considered to be a sacred institution, as a foundation for a family and not a "commercial venture".

Notably, the bench observed the invocation of IPC sections including rape, criminal intimidation and subjecting a married woman to cruelty -- as a "combined package" in most of the complaints related to matrimonial disputes -- was condemned by the top court on several occasions.

"The women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands," it said.

The observations came when the bench dissolved the marriage between an estranged couple on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown.

"The provisions in the criminal law are for the protection and empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women more for purposes that they are never meant for," the bench said.

The husband in the case was ordered to pay Rs 12 crore as permanent alimony to the estranged wife as a full and final settlement for all her claims within a month.

The bench however commented on cases, where the wife and her family tended to use a criminal complaint with these serious offences as a platform for negotiation and as a tool to get the husband and his family to comply with their demands, which were mostly monetary in nature.

It said the police were sometimes quick to jump into action in selective cases and arrest the husband or even his relatives, including aged and bedridden parents and grandparents with trial courts refraining from giving bail to accused owing to the "gravity of the offences" in the FIR.

"The collective effect of this chain of events is often overlooked by the actual individual players involved therein, which is that even minor disputes between husband and wife tend to snowball into ugly prodigious battles of ego and reputation and washing dirty linen in public, eventually leading to the relationship turning sour to the extent that there remains no possibility of a reconciliation or cohabitation," it said.

The apex court noted a plea was filed before it by the wife seeking transfer of a divorce petition filed under section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending in a court in Bhopal to a court in Pune.

The husband had sought dissolution of marriage under Article 142(1) of the Constitution.

The court said the parties and their family members were involved in numerous litigations during the brief period of their marital relationship.

The bench said the marriage did not really take off at all, observing no continuous cohabitation of the estranged couple.

Considering the point of alimony, the court said the wife claimed the estranged husband had a net-worth of Rs 5,000 crore with multiple businesses and properties in the US and in India, and had paid the first wife at least Rs 500 crore upon separation, excluding a house in Virginia.

"Thus, she claims permanent alimony commensurate to the status of the respondent-husband and on the same principles as was paid to the first wife of the respondent," the bench noted.

The apex court expressed serious reservations with the tendency of the parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the other party.

The bench said it was often seen that parties in their application for maintenance or alimony highlighted the assets, status and income of their spouse, and then asked for an amount that could equal their wealth of the spouse.

"However, there is an inconsistency in this practice, because the demands of equalisation are made only in cases where the spouse is a person of means or is doing well for himself," it said.

The bench wondered if the wife would be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth if due to some unfortunate event, post-separation, he was rendered a pauper.

Fixing alimony depends on various factors and there cannot be any straight-jacket formula, it said.

In the joint plea jointly seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of mutual divorce, the husband had agreed to pay a sum of Rs 8 crore towards full and final settlement of all claims.

"The family court at Pune has assessed Rs 10 crore as the quantum of permanent alimony that petitioner could be entitled to. We accept the said finding of the family court, Pune. An additional amount of Rs 2 crore is liable to be paid to the petitioner so as to enable her to acquire another flat...," said the bench.

The apex court also quashed the criminal cases filed by the wife against the estranged husband.