Constitution of India — Article 142 — Divorce — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage
Supreme Court, in exercise of power under Article 142(1), may dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even though such ground is not provided under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Power may be exercised despite opposition of one spouse, where marriage is completely shattered and beyond salvage.
(Paras 10–11, 15, 20, 26)
Irretrievable breakdown — Indicators
Marriage where parties cohabited only for 65 days, lived separately for more than a decade, and were engaged in over 40 civil and criminal proceedings against each other — repeated failure of mediation and reconciliation — held to be a clear case of irretrievable breakdown.
(Paras 7–9, 15–21, 26)
Article 142 — Complete justice — Scope
Power under Article 142 is discretionary, equitable and situation-specific — Court may dissolve marriage to put an end to prolonged litigation, suffering and misery where continuation of legal relationship serves no purpose.
(Paras 11–11.2, 20–21, 26)
Opposition by spouse — Not a bar
Consent of both spouses not mandatory — Divorce can be granted even when one party opposes dissolution, provided Court is satisfied that there is no possibility of cohabitation and continuation of marriage would be unjustified.
(Paras 11.2, 19–20, 26)
Multiplicity of litigation — Abuse of judicial process
More than four decades of cumulative litigation including matrimonial, criminal, execution and perjury proceedings — Courts cannot be used as battlefields by warring spouses to settle personal scores — Judicial system cannot be choked by endless matrimonial litigation.
(Paras 8–9, 21–22)
Mediation — Failure — Consequence
Despite reference to mediation by Supreme Court, process could not commence — repeated attempts at reconciliation failed — absence of any realistic possibility of settlement justified dissolution of marriage.
(Paras 2, 15)
Pending matrimonial and criminal proceedings — Quashing
All pending proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute between the parties directed to stand disposed of upon grant of divorce, to bring quietus to litigation.
(Paras 18, 28, 30)
Exception — Perjury proceedings
Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS alleging perjury and fabrication of evidence excluded from blanket quashing — Such proceedings to continue independently as no party can be permitted to pollute the stream of justice.
(Paras 28–29)
False statements — Stream of justice
Perjury proceedings cannot be terminated merely because matrimonial dispute has been settled — Allegations of false evidence must be adjudicated on merits.
(Paras 28–29)
Alimony
No alimony claimed by wife — All past claims deemed settled upon dissolution of marriage.
(Para 26)
Costs
Both parties saddled with costs of ₹10,000 each for indulging in prolonged and excessive litigation.
(Para 32)
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
1. Nature of proceedings
The case originated as a transfer petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of perjury proceedings from Delhi to Lucknow.
During pendency:
-
wife filed application under Article 142 seeking dissolution of marriage;
-
husband opposed dissolution and appeared in person.
2. Factual matrix
-
Marriage solemnized: 28.01.2012
-
Separation: 02.04.2012
-
Cohabitation: 65 days only
-
Separation period: over 13 years
3. Litigation history
The Court undertook an unprecedented factual verification by:
-
directing both parties to file exhaustive lists of cases;
-
calling reports from Registrars General of Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court;
-
identifying discrepancies in parties’ disclosures.
More than 40 civil and criminal cases were found to have been filed between the parties across multiple jurisdictions.
4. Application of Constitution Bench ruling
The Court relied principally on:
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
(2023) 14 SCC 231
Holding that:
-
irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground under HMA;
-
but Supreme Court may dissolve marriage under Article 142;
-
long separation, multiple litigations and failed mediation are decisive factors.
5. Factors applied (para 63 of Shilpa Sailesh)
The Court evaluated:
-
duration of separation (over a decade);
-
absence of children;
-
continuous litigation;
-
failure of mediation;
-
level of bitterness;
-
absence of possibility of reunion.
All parameters stood fully satisfied.
6. Findings
The Court held:
-
marriage was “wrecked beyond salvage”;
-
reconciliation impossible;
-
continuation of legal tie unjustified;
-
case squarely fell within irretrievable breakdown doctrine.
7. Final directions
-
Marriage dissolved under Article 142.
-
All matrimonial proceedings quashed.
-
Perjury proceedings preserved.
-
Parties restrained from further matrimonial litigation.
-
Costs imposed on both parties.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Where spouses have cohabited only briefly, lived separately for more than a decade, engaged in extensive civil and criminal litigation against each other, and all efforts at reconciliation including mediation have failed, the Supreme Court may, in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, notwithstanding the absence of such ground under the Hindu Marriage Act and despite opposition by one spouse, in order to do complete justice and bring finality to the dispute.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
This judgment:
-
Reaffirms the binding authority of Shilpa Sailesh
-
Clarifies that Article 142 divorce is independent of consent
-
Permits global settlement of matrimonial litigation
-
Protects perjury jurisdiction from compromise
-
Demonstrates judicial intolerance towards litigation abuse in family disputes
No comments:
Post a Comment