Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | T.P.(Crl.) No.-000338 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 18841/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent (Shilpa Sailesh) |
| Type of Law | Constitutional jurisdiction (Art 142), matrimonial law, criminal procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court reaffirmed its discretionary power under Article 142 to grant divorce for irretrievable breakdown even though the Hindu Marriage Act does not recognise that ground. Irretrievable breakdown must be established by factors such as period of cohabitation, attempts at mediation, duration of separation (over six years), allegations exchanged, absence of children and ability to provide for dependents. Once established, SC may dissolve the marriage and quash related litigation to do complete justice. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts, future Supreme Court benches |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | None |
| Follows | Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023 INSC 468) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms SC’s power under Article 142 to dissolve marriages for irretrievable breakdown despite no statutory ground in the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Applies detailed factors (cohabitation, separation, mediation attempts, allegations, absence of children) from Shilpa Sailesh para 63 as threshold for “irretrievable breakdown.”
- Directs quashing of all pending matrimonial proceedings across jurisdictions, except applications under Section 340 CrPC or Section 379 read with 215 BNSS (perjury-related).
- Emphasises mediation as first recourse in pre-litigation and ongoing family disputes; criminal remedies should be last resort.
- Imposes nominal costs on both parties for abusing judicial process with successive filings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Referred to Shilpa Sailesh (2023 INSC 468): SC’s Article 142 power includes dissolving marriages where irretrievable breakdown is firmly established.
- Applied para 63 factors: only 65 days of cohabitation, over 10 years of separation, failed mediation and reconciliation efforts, bitter multiplicity of proceedings, absence of children.
- Concluded marriage cannot be salvaged; granted divorce under Article 142 as “complete justice.”
- Quashed all pending matrimonial cases identified by Court-verified lists, except those alleging perjury (Section 340 CrPC/Section 379 & 215 BNSS).
- Directed cessation of further matrimonial litigation; awarded costs to penalise vexatious filings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Marriage has irretrievably broken down after 65 days’ cohabitation and >10 years’ separation.
- Hindu Marriage Act lacks this ground; invokes Art 142 for “complete justice.”
- No alimony claimed; seeks transfer and quashing of pending cases.
- Relied on Shilpa Sailesh and subsequent precedents.
Respondent (in-person)
- Petitioner’s multiple cases are frivolous and ruinous, including perjury and fabrication.
- Opposes divorce; no mutual consent.
- Petitioner financially well-off; he lacks means to litigate.
- Pending perjury applications under Section 340 CrPC/379 BNSS must continue.
Factual Background
The parties married on 28 January 2012 but lived together for only 65 days, separating on 2 April 2012. Since separation they initiated over 40 family, civil and criminal proceedings against each other across Delhi, Ghaziabad, Allahabad and Lucknow. The wife filed an Article 142 application in the Supreme Court seeking dissolution of marriage for irretrievable breakdown and quashing of all related proceedings; a mediated settlement failed. No children were born of the marriage; the wife earns a monthly salary, the husband resigned from his engineering post.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 142(1) Constitution of India: extraordinary jurisdiction to do “complete justice,” including dissolving marriages.
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: does not include irretrievable breakdown as ground for divorce; SC’s Art 142 power fills this gap.
- CrPC Section 340: perjury proceedings remain unaffected by quashing order.
- BNSS 2023 Sections 379 & 215: perjury-related applications continue.
- Emphasis on DV Act mediation provisions and family-law processes as first recourse.
Procedural Innovations
- Verified party-submitted case lists with High Court registrars before final order.
- Blanket quashing of all pending matrimonial litigation identified, while preserving perjury applications.
- Direction for courts to dispose of any unlisted matrimonial disputes on production of SC order.
- Imposed costs on both parties for litigious conduct.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed