Article 142 Divorce: How the Supreme Court Can End Irretrievably Broken Marriages and Resolve Multiple Matrimonial Cases

Introduction: When a Marriage Has Ended in Everything but Law

Some marriages do not end with a divorce decree. Instead, they continue for years through courtrooms, police stations, maintenance applications, domestic violence complaints, criminal proceedings and repeated appearances before courts in different states.

Table of Contents

The spouses may have lived separately for a decade or longer. Reconciliation may have failed despite repeated attempts. What remains is often a legal relationship that neither party can realistically restore, accompanied by litigation that continues to consume time, money and emotional energy.

In such circumstances, an important question arises: Can the Supreme Court dissolve a marriage that has irretrievably broken down and bring related matrimonial litigation to an end, even when the parties have not obtained a conventional divorce decree?

The answer, in appropriate cases, is yes.

Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary to do complete justice in a cause or matter pending before it. The Court has interpreted this constitutional power to include the authority to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even where one spouse opposes the divorce.

In suitable cases, the Court may also consider whether connected proceedings arising from the matrimonial dispute should continue or can lawfully be brought to an end.

However, Article 142 divorce is an exceptional constitutional remedy, not a shortcut available to every couple facing a difficult marriage. The Supreme Court examines the facts, the history of separation, the prospects of reconciliation, the interests of the parties and the consequences of the proposed settlement before deciding whether to exercise this power.

Understanding the scope and limits of Article 142 is therefore essential for anyone considering this remedy.

1. What Is Article 142 Divorce?

Article 142(1) of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court may pass any decree or make any order necessary for doing complete justice in a cause or matter pending before it. Such a decree or order is enforceable throughout the territory of India in the manner provided by the Constitution and applicable law.

The provision gives the Supreme Court a distinctive constitutional power to address situations in which ordinary legal remedies may not adequately resolve the dispute before it.

In matrimonial matters, this power has particular significance where the marriage has ceased to function as a relationship but remains legally intact.

For example, a couple may have been living separately for many years. Divorce proceedings may have failed or become entangled in prolonged litigation. One spouse may be unwilling to consent to a mutual-consent divorce, while the other maintains that there is no realistic possibility of reconciliation.

If the Supreme Court is properly seized of the matter, it may, in an appropriate case, dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142.

The Court may also consider consequential directions concerning permanent alimony, pending proceedings and other issues necessary to bring the dispute to a just and workable conclusion.

The central objective is not simply to end a marriage. It is to determine whether a legally complete and fair resolution is possible in the circumstances of the case.

2. The Landmark Constitution Bench Decision: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan

The leading authority on Article 142 divorce is Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231; 2023 INSC 468.

In this Constitution Bench decision, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of its constitutional power to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

The judgment is significant because it confirms that the Supreme Court does not invariably require both spouses to consent before dissolving a marriage under Article 142. Where the facts demonstrate that the marriage has completely failed and continuation of the legal relationship would serve no meaningful purpose, the Court may grant a divorce despite opposition from one spouse.

The decision also addresses the Court’s ability, in appropriate circumstances, to dispense with the statutory waiting period associated with a mutual-consent divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court’s power, however, is discretionary. It must be exercised carefully, after considering the circumstances of the particular marriage and the need to do complete justice.

What does the judgment mean in practical terms?

The decision establishes several important principles:

Mutual consent is not an absolute requirement: The Supreme Court may dissolve a marriage under Article 142 even if one spouse opposes the divorce.
Irretrievable breakdown must be assessed on the facts: Long separation, failed reconciliation and persistent hostility may be relevant, but no single factor automatically determines the outcome.
The Court must examine the overall circumstances: The parties’ conduct, the history of the relationship, the possibility of reconciliation and the consequences of continuing the marriage may all be relevant.
The remedy is not available as a matter of right: A party cannot demand an Article 142 divorce merely because the marriage has become unhappy or difficult.
The power must be exercised consistently with complete justice: The Court must consider the equities of both parties rather than treating dissolution as a purely technical exercise.

The distinction is important. A marriage that has suffered serious difficulties is not necessarily one that has irretrievably broken down. The Court must be satisfied that the relationship has reached a point at which continuation of the legal bond is no longer justified.

3. Can the Supreme Court Grant Divorce Even When One Spouse Objects?

Yes. The Constitution Bench in Shilpa Sailesh recognised that the Supreme Court may dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown even without the consent of both spouses.

This does not mean that the objection of the spouse opposing divorce can be ignored.

The Court must examine the reasons for the objection and the circumstances in which the marriage has deteriorated. It must also consider whether the spouse opposing dissolution would suffer unfair prejudice if the marriage were terminated.

Financial dependence, maintenance requirements, children’s welfare and other relevant circumstances may affect the Court’s assessment.

A spouse cannot insist that a marriage must continue indefinitely merely because the other spouse does not agree to a divorce. Equally, the spouse seeking dissolution cannot assume that prolonged separation automatically entitles them to relief.

The Court’s task is to assess the complete factual picture and decide whether dissolution is necessary to do justice.

4. Why Irretrievable Breakdown Is Different from an Ordinary Divorce Ground

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not, by itself, a general statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Act provides specific grounds on which a matrimonial court may grant a divorce. Section 13B separately provides for divorce by mutual consent, subject to its statutory requirements.

Consequently, a Family Court or High Court cannot ordinarily grant a divorce solely because it considers the marriage irretrievably broken down, without an applicable statutory ground.

The Supreme Court occupies a different constitutional position because of its power under Article 142.

This distinction is fundamental.

Article 142 does not create a general right to irretrievable-breakdown divorce before every court in India. It gives the Supreme Court a constitutional power that may be exercised in an appropriate matter pending before it.

A litigant therefore needs to consider not only whether the marriage has broken down, but also whether the procedural and jurisdictional circumstances permit the Supreme Court to consider the requested relief.

5. When Matrimonial Disputes Spread Across Several States

A broken marriage can generate litigation in more than one jurisdiction.

Depending on the facts, proceedings may include:

Divorce or judicial separation petitions.
Applications for maintenance or permanent alimony.
Domestic violence proceedings.
Criminal complaints alleging cruelty, criminal breach of trust or other offences.
Proceedings concerning the return of matrimonial property or stridhan.
Civil claims between the spouses or their family members.
Transfer petitions seeking to move cases from one court to another.
Applications arising from alleged false statements or other conduct during litigation.

When these proceedings continue simultaneously, the parties may be required to travel between courts, engage separate lawyers and respond to applications filed over several years.

The practical consequences can be severe. Legal expenses increase, employment and family life may be disrupted, and the original matrimonial dispute can become more difficult to resolve.

The existence of multiple proceedings does not, by itself, establish that any complaint is false or that the person who filed it is acting improperly. Each case must be assessed on its own facts.

Nevertheless, where several proceedings arise from the same matrimonial breakdown, the Supreme Court may consider whether a comprehensive resolution is possible.

The important question is whether the Court can lawfully resolve the issues before it without disregarding the rights of the parties, the requirements of criminal law or the interests of anyone else affected by the proceedings.

6. Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta: A Significant Example of Comprehensive Relief

In Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta & Ors., 2025 INSC 254, decided on 20 February 2025, the Supreme Court dealt with a matrimonial dispute that had generated numerous proceedings.

The marriage had taken place in February 2018, and the relationship deteriorated soon after the couple began living together. The parties subsequently became involved in multiple proceedings in India.

The case also raised questions concerning extradition-related proceedings and the impounding of the husband’s passport.

After examining the circumstances, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. It directed the husband to pay ₹25 lakh as permanent alimony and ordered that the criminal cases, domestic violence complaints and civil cases pending between the wife, the husband and his family members be closed. The Court also directed the release of the husband’s passport.

The judgment illustrates how the Supreme Court may address several connected consequences of a matrimonial breakdown in a single proceeding.

It is important, however, to understand the decision in its factual context. The Court considered the circumstances of the particular dispute, the prolonged separation, the financial position of the parties and the extensive litigation between them.

The judgment should not be read as establishing that every matrimonial settlement entitles a party to have all criminal or civil proceedings terminated.

Before publication or reliance on this case in an individual matter, subsequent orders in the same proceedings should also be checked. Any later modification affecting the financial settlement must be accurately reflected rather than assuming that the amount stated in the original judgment necessarily represents the final position.

7. Navneesh Aggarwal v. State of Haryana: Quashing Criminal Proceedings After a Matrimonial Settlement

Another important decision is Navneesh Aggarwal & Others v. State of Haryana & Another, 2025 INSC 963, decided on 12 August 2025.

The case concerned criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial discord, including allegations under Sections 323, 406, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Supreme Court considered the dispute in the context of the subsequent matrimonial settlement and the position taken by the parties.

The decision demonstrates that criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes may, in appropriate circumstances, be quashed where the Court is satisfied that continuing them would serve no legitimate purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

However, the legal basis for quashing proceedings must be stated accurately. A decision to quash criminal proceedings is not identical to a decision dissolving a marriage under Article 142. The two forms of relief raise related but distinct legal questions.

The nature of the alleged offence, the stage of the prosecution, the parties’ settlement, the position of the complainant and the public interest involved may all be relevant.

A matrimonial settlement cannot automatically extinguish every criminal allegation. The Court must determine whether the proceedings can lawfully be brought to an end in the circumstances before it.

8. Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar: Article 142 in the Face of Prolonged Litigation and Opposition

The Supreme Court’s decision in Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar, 2026 INSC 73, decided on 20 January 2026, is another important development in the law concerning irretrievable breakdown.

The matter arose from a long-running matrimonial dispute involving numerous proceedings between the parties. They had been living separately since April 2012, following a marriage solemnised in January of that year.

The wife sought dissolution of the marriage under Article 142, while the husband opposed the request and disputed her account of the relationship and the litigation.

The case illustrates why the Supreme Court must examine the full history of a matrimonial dispute rather than relying on a simple count of pending cases or the length of separation alone.

It also highlights an important practical point: a request for comprehensive relief must accurately identify all pending and disposed-of proceedings. In complex litigation, incomplete or inconsistent information can make it difficult for the Court to determine the appropriate final orders.

For parties considering Article 142 relief, the lesson is clear. A properly prepared application should present a reliable chronology, an accurate case inventory and a clear explanation of why the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

It should also identify any proceedings that may require separate consideration rather than assuming that every dispute can automatically be closed along with the marriage.

9. Can the Supreme Court Quash Every Criminal Case Along with the Divorce?

No. This is one of the most important limitations to understand.

The Supreme Court’s power to dissolve a marriage under Article 142 does not mean that every criminal case connected with the relationship must also be quashed.

The legal principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings require a separate assessment.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court explained the distinction between offences that are essentially private in nature and offences that have a serious impact on society.

In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court discussed the circumstances in which criminal proceedings may be quashed following a settlement.

The principles were further considered in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688.

Taken together, these decisions make clear that a settlement is relevant but not conclusive. The Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, its impact on society, the circumstances of the case and whether continuing the prosecution would serve the interests of justice.

The distinction is particularly important where allegations involve serious violence, offences against vulnerable persons or conduct that cannot appropriately be treated as a purely private dispute.

Matrimonial cruelty allegations require careful examination. Neither the filing of a complaint nor the existence of a settlement should be treated as conclusive proof of the underlying allegations.

Where the dispute has genuinely been settled, the parties have resolved their matrimonial relationship and the Court finds that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process, quashing may be considered in an appropriate case.

But the outcome depends on the applicable law and the facts. The complainant’s position, the stage of the prosecution and the nature of the alleged conduct can be significant.

The correct legal approach is therefore not to assume that settlement automatically ends a prosecution, but to identify the relevant legal basis for quashing and demonstrate why the circumstances satisfy it.

10. What Happens to Domestic Violence Proceedings and Maintenance Claims?

Domestic violence proceedings can involve several distinct forms of relief, including protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, custody-related orders and compensation.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides a statutory framework for such remedies. A matrimonial settlement or divorce decree does not automatically answer every question arising under the Act.

The effect of a proposed settlement will depend on the nature of the proceeding, the relief already granted, the terms of the settlement and the applicable law.

Maintenance and Permanent Alimony

Maintenance and permanent alimony also require separate attention.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, Sections 24 and 25 deal with maintenance pendente lite and permanent alimony respectively. Other statutory provisions may apply depending on the nature of the claim and the circumstances of the parties.

In determining permanent alimony, the Supreme Court has emphasised the importance of considering matters such as the financial position of both parties, their reasonable needs, independent income and assets, the standard of living during the marriage, dependent children and existing financial obligations.

In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Supreme Court set out important principles concerning maintenance proceedings and financial disclosure.

Essential Terms of a Matrimonial Settlement

A comprehensive matrimonial settlement should therefore state clearly:

The amount of permanent alimony or other agreed financial relief.
The payment schedule and the consequences of default.
Whether outstanding maintenance arrears have been identified and resolved.
The treatment of pending maintenance applications.
The status of property, stridhan and other financial claims.
Any continuing obligations relating to children.

A vague undertaking to settle “all claims” may create further disputes if it does not adequately address the claims actually pending between the parties.

11. Can Article 142 Be Used to Override Every Statutory Requirement?

No. Article 142 is a powerful constitutional provision, but it is not an unrestricted authority to disregard the law.

In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409, the Court explained important limits on the use of Article 142. The power to do complete justice cannot be treated as a general licence to assume jurisdiction that the Constitution or applicable law does not confer.

The Constitution Bench in Shilpa Sailesh clarified the Supreme Court’s authority in the specific context of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. That authority must be understood within the principles articulated by the Court, rather than as a general exemption from statutory requirements.

The Supreme Court must also consider whether the proposed relief is consistent with fundamental principles of public policy and whether the interests of affected persons are adequately protected.

The existence of a constitutional power does not mean that its exercise is inevitable.

For this reason, an Article 142 application must do more than assert that the parties are tired of litigation. It must explain why the circumstances justify the exceptional intervention sought and how the proposed orders would bring about complete justice.

12. What About Children, Third Parties and Proceedings for Perjury?

A comprehensive settlement between spouses must not be drafted as though the parties are the only persons whose rights matter.

Children’s Welfare and Legal Rights

Where children are involved, their welfare and legal rights require independent consideration. A settlement between parents cannot automatically extinguish a child’s independent entitlement to maintenance, protection or other lawful relief.

Third-Party Rights and Matrimonial Settlement

Similarly, proceedings involving third parties may require separate analysis. A matrimonial settlement cannot necessarily bind a person who is not a party to it or extinguish an independent cause of action belonging to someone else.

Perjury and False Evidence Proceedings

Proceedings concerning alleged perjury or false evidence also require care. Such proceedings may involve the administration of justice itself, not merely a private disagreement between spouses.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar underscores the importance of examining the actual list and status of the proceedings between the parties. The existence of an Article 142 application does not, by itself, establish that every collateral proceeding should be terminated.

Proceedings to Be Addressed in a Matrimonial Settlement

A well-drafted settlement should therefore distinguish between:

Proceedings that can appropriately be concluded as part of the matrimonial resolution.
Claims that have already been disposed of and require no further order.
Proceedings that may need separate judicial consideration.
Independent rights belonging to children or third parties.
Matters that cannot lawfully be waived or terminated merely by agreement between the spouses.

This distinction helps prevent a settlement intended to bring finality from becoming the source of fresh litigation.

13. How to Prepare a Strong Article 142 Application

A successful application depends on the facts and the applicable law. There is no universal formula that guarantees relief.

Nevertheless, a properly prepared case should ordinarily address the following matters.

A. Establish the History of the Marriage

Set out the date of marriage, the period of cohabitation, the date of separation and the events that led to the breakdown of the relationship.

The chronology should be clear and supported by the relevant documents.

B. Explain Why Reconciliation Is No Longer Realistic

Identify previous attempts at reconciliation, mediation or settlement and explain their outcome.

The application should address the actual circumstances demonstrating that the marriage has broken down, rather than relying on general statements of incompatibility.

C. Prepare a Complete Litigation Inventory

List every relevant proceeding, including the case number, court, parties, legal provisions invoked, current status and next date of hearing where available.

The list should distinguish between pending matters, disposed-of proceedings and cases in which further applications or appeals remain possible.

D. Identify the Precise Relief Required

The application should clearly state whether the parties seek dissolution of marriage, quashing or closure of particular proceedings, directions concerning maintenance, release of documents or passports, or other consequential relief.

Each requested order should have an identifiable legal basis.

E. Address Financial Claims Transparently

Disclose the relevant income, assets, liabilities, maintenance orders and outstanding arrears.

Where a lump-sum settlement is proposed, the amount should be supported by an assessment of the parties’ circumstances and the claims being resolved.

F. Protect Children and Independent Rights

The proposed settlement should deal expressly with child maintenance, custody, visitation and other relevant issues where applicable.

It should not assume that an agreement between spouses can extinguish independent rights belonging to children or third parties.

G. Draft the Finality Terms Carefully

The proposed order should identify which proceedings are to be closed, which orders are to be set aside or modified, and what obligations will continue after the divorce.

Broad language that fails to identify the affected cases can create uncertainty and make enforcement more difficult.

H. Verify the Procedural Route

Article 142 relief must be sought in a cause or matter properly before the Supreme Court. A party should not assume that filing an application referring to Article 142, by itself, gives the Court jurisdiction over every dispute pending elsewhere.

The procedural route, connected proceedings and relief sought should be assessed before the application is prepared.

14. Is Article 142 Divorce the Right Remedy for Your Case?

Article 142 may be relevant where a marriage has been irretrievably broken down, the parties have lived separately for a substantial period, reconciliation is no longer realistic and litigation has continued across several forums.

It may also be worth examining where a proposed settlement could resolve the matrimonial relationship and certain connected disputes more effectively than continued litigation.

However, the remedy is not suitable for every matrimonial case.

A party must consider whether the Supreme Court is properly seized of the matter, whether the facts support the exceptional relief sought, whether the financial settlement is fair and whether any criminal, statutory or third-party rights require separate treatment.

The existence of multiple cases does not automatically justify their termination. Nor does a long period of separation guarantee a decree of divorce.

The strongest application is one that presents the complete facts, identifies the legal basis for every requested order and demonstrates why the proposed resolution would do complete justice.

Conclusion: Finality Requires More Than a Divorce Decree

An irretrievably broken marriage can leave the parties tied to years of litigation even after the relationship itself has ended.

Article 142 gives the Supreme Court a constitutional mechanism to address such situations in appropriate cases. Through this power, the Court may dissolve a marriage despite the opposition of one spouse and, where legally justified, consider consequential relief concerning connected proceedings.

The decisions in Shilpa Sailesh, Vishal Shah, Navneesh Aggarwal and Neha Lal demonstrate the importance of examining the complete circumstances of a matrimonial dispute rather than treating divorce, criminal proceedings and financial claims as entirely isolated questions.

But Article 142 is not a universal settlement mechanism. The Court must balance the need for finality against statutory requirements, public interest, financial fairness and the rights of children and third parties.

For anyone considering an Article 142 divorce, the essential question is not simply whether the marriage has ended in practical terms. It is whether the facts, procedural position and proposed terms justify the Supreme Court’s exceptional constitutional intervention.

A carefully prepared case can help the Court see the complete picture, identify the issues that genuinely require resolution and determine what orders may lawfully bring the dispute to a close.

⚖️ Article 142 Divorce: Is There a Way to End Years of Matrimonial Litigation?

Are you trapped in a marriage that has irretrievably broken down? Are multiple matrimonial cases, criminal proceedings or maintenance disputes draining your time, finances and peace of mind?

You do not have to navigate this legal complexity without understanding your options.

The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown in appropriate cases. Depending on the facts and applicable law, the Court may also consider relief concerning connected proceedings.

However, every case is different, and the right legal strategy can make a significant difference. Understanding whether Article 142 may apply to your circumstances is the first step towards making an informed decision about your future.

👨‍⚖️ Consult an Experienced Supreme Court Advocate

Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

If you are dealing with prolonged matrimonial litigation, proceedings across multiple states, or a marriage with no realistic prospect of reconciliation, seek a case-specific assessment of your legal options.

✔️ Understand whether an Article 142 divorce may be available in your circumstances.
✔️ Explore lawful options for addressing connected matrimonial and criminal proceedings.
✔️ Understand the implications of permanent alimony, maintenance and settlement terms.
✔️ Identify the appropriate legal strategy for pursuing a fair and legally sustainable resolution.

📞 Take the First Step Towards Legal Clarity

Call: 9650499965
WhatsApp: 8851978611
Email: [email protected]

Do not let uncertainty about your legal options dictate your next move. Seek informed legal guidance, understand the remedies available to you, and make your next decision with greater clarity.

Every matter depends on its facts, procedural stage and applicable law. Relief under Article 142 is discretionary and cannot be guaranteed.

Frequently Asked Questions About Article 142 Divorce

1. Can the Supreme Court Grant Divorce Under Article 142 on the Ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage?

Yes. The Supreme Court of India can dissolve a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even if one spouse opposes the divorce. In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), a Constitution Bench clarified this power. However, Article 142 divorce is an exceptional and discretionary remedy, and the Court considers the facts of each case before granting relief.

2. Can Article 142 Divorce Help Quash Multiple Matrimonial and Criminal Cases Pending in Different States?

In appropriate cases, the Supreme Court may pass orders concerning connected matrimonial, civil and criminal proceedings while exercising its constitutional powers. However, divorce does not automatically terminate every pending case. The Court considers the nature of the allegations, the stage of the proceedings, the settlement between the parties and the public interest involved before deciding whether criminal proceedings can lawfully be quashed.

3. Is Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage a Legal Ground for Divorce in India?

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not an independent statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the Supreme Court may dissolve a marriage on this ground under Article 142 of the Constitution in an appropriate case. Family Courts and High Courts cannot ordinarily grant divorce solely on the ground of irretrievable breakdown without an applicable statutory ground.

Yes. Under the principles explained in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), the Supreme Court may dissolve a marriage under Article 142 even when one spouse does not consent. The Court examines factors such as the duration of separation, the possibility of reconciliation, the history of the marriage and the overall circumstances. Long separation alone does not guarantee divorce.

The Supreme Court may, in an appropriate case, issue consequential directions concerning permanent alimony, maintenance and connected proceedings while exercising its Article 142 powers. The financial settlement depends on the circumstances, including the parties’ income, assets, liabilities, reasonable needs and existing obligations. The rights of children and third parties must also be considered, and not every independent claim can automatically be extinguished by a matrimonial settlement.

Key Takeaways: Article 142 Divorce in India

Article 142 divorce: The Supreme Court of India can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Constitution, even without the consent of both spouses, in appropriate cases.
Landmark Supreme Court judgment: In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), a Constitution Bench clarified the Supreme Court’s power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142.
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage: Irretrievable breakdown is not an independent statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Supreme Court may nevertheless grant divorce on this ground under Article 142 in an appropriate case.
Divorce without mutual consent: The Supreme Court may dissolve a marriage under Article 142 even if one spouse opposes divorce. However, relief is discretionary, and prolonged separation alone does not guarantee a divorce decree.
Quashing multiple matrimonial cases: In appropriate circumstances, the Supreme Court may consider orders concerning connected criminal, civil and matrimonial proceedings arising from the same marital dispute. Divorce does not automatically terminate every pending case.
Quashing criminal proceedings after settlement: The Court considers the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the stage of proceedings, the settlement between the parties and the public interest before deciding whether criminal proceedings can lawfully be quashed.
Permanent alimony and maintenance: The Supreme Court may issue appropriate directions concerning permanent alimony, maintenance and related financial obligations. The parties’ income, assets, liabilities, reasonable needs and existing obligations may be relevant.
Domestic violence proceedings: A divorce or matrimonial settlement does not automatically extinguish every claim or order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The legal effect depends on the nature of the proceedings and the applicable law.
Protection of children and third-party rights: A settlement between spouses cannot automatically extinguish independent rights belonging to children or third parties. The Court must consider relevant welfare, statutory and public-interest concerns.
When to seek Article 142 relief: Article 142 may be relevant where a marriage has irretrievably broken down, reconciliation is no longer realistic and prolonged matrimonial litigation continues across multiple courts. The Supreme Court must, however, be properly seized of the matter.
Importance of legal preparation: A well-prepared Article 142 application should include a clear chronology of the marriage, details of separation, a complete list of pending proceedings, financial disclosures and precise requests for relief.
Article 142 is an exceptional remedy: The Supreme Court’s constitutional power to do complete justice is discretionary. Eligibility and relief depend on the facts, procedural circumstances and applicable law.

What's Hot

Tags

Categories