Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025

Posted on February 22, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed this judgment whereby the marriage of parties is severed and Rs.25 Lakhs alimony was ordered to be paid to wife. Also since DV cases are quasi-criminal in nature, thus, there cannot be any justification to require the personal presence/appearance of the appellant in these proceedings.

From Para 18,

18. In the afore-mentioned complaint case, an application10 was filed by the respondent under Section 26 of the DV Act against the appellant, her mother-in-law, and their five other relatives. A notice was issued to the appellant vide order dated 21st July 2022. Subsequently, on 11th August 2022, the learned JMFC passed an interim order in favour of the respondent, prohibiting her eviction from the matrimonial home and directing the personal appearance of the appellant (respondent therein) and other respondents on the next hearing date. However, when the matter was listed again, the Court noticed that the appellant had not returned to India, and the concerned authorities were directed to initiate the extradition process against him.
We may observe that as the proceedings under the DV Act are quasi-criminal in nature, thus, there cannot be any justification to require the personal presence of the appellant in these proceedings. Thus, the learned Magistrate grossly erred while directing the appellant to remain personally present in the Court.

From Para 20,

20. It is apparent that the appellant’s inability to travel to India and appear in Miscellaneous Case No. 440 of 2022, filed by the respondent under Section 26 of the DV Act, stemmed from the impoundment of his passport, a circumstance beyond his control. Consequently, the order of the learned JMFC directing the initiation of extradition proceedings against the appellant as a consequence of his non-appearance, despite being aware of the fact of impounding of the passport of the appellant, is untenable and unsustainable in the eyes of the law. Otherwise also, as noted above, there is no requirement for the personal presence of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the DV Act.

From Para 26,

26. On the issue as to grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, this Court, in a very recent judgment of Rinku Baheti v Sandesh Sharda13, held that the factual analysis has to be undertaken in each case to determine as to what constitutes an ‘irretrievable breakdown’ while keeping in mind the non-exhaustive factors laid down in Shilpa Sailesh (supra).

From Para 31,

31. The filing of the aforesaid cases by the respondent-wife reflects her vindictive attitude towards the appellant and his family members and unambiguously reflects the bitterness that has seeped into the marital relationship. The tumultuous state of the marital relationship between the parties is quite evident, irrespective of the fate of the criminal complaints and the imputations made by the parties against each other. The passport of the appellant was also impounded by the concerned authorities, pursuant to the pending cases filed by the respondent.

From Paras 35-37,

35. Whatever may be the justification for the spouses living separately, with so much time having passed by any marital love or affection that may have developedbetween the parties seems to have evanesced. This is a classic case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The admitted long-standing separation, nature of differences, prolonged and multiple litigations pending adjudication, and the unwillingness of the parties to reconcile are evidence enough to establish beyond all manner of doubt that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and that there is no scope whatsoever for marriage to survive. Thus, no useful purpose, emotional or practical, would be served by continuing the soured relationship. On the basis ofthe above factual matrix, the present appears to be a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
36. Apart from the irreconcilable status of the relationship between the parties, in the present case, another factor that has weighed with this Court in favour of the exercise of the power under Article 142(1)of the Constitution of India is that there is no child born from the wedlock and therefore, any direction to allowthe parties to part ways would only affect the parties themselves and not any innocent child.
37. Thus, this is a fit case warranting the exercise of the discretion conferred under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

From Paras 42-43,

42. Before we conclude our discussion, we must note that the act of impounding the passport of the appellant by the concerned authorities of the Government of India was ex-facie illegal in the eyes of the law. In the present case, the appellant’s passport was impounded on the mere premise that the respondent has filed numerous cases before the various courts in India.
43. The law regarding the impounding of a passport of an individual has been settled by this Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr.16, wherein it was held that the rules of natural justice must be followed before impounding a passport under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967.

From Paras 45-46,

45. Further, this Court, in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.17, while dealing with the question of arrest and fair investigation in a case alleging the offence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC, was of the view that in respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of ‘Red Corner Notice’ should not be a routine.
46. Applying the afore-mentioned legal principles to the present case, we find that the act of impounding the appellant’s passport under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967, was carried out without granting the appellant an opportunity to be heard. This clear violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act of impounding the passport ex-facie illegal. Consequently, we hold that the concerned authorities should release the appellant’s passport within a period of one week from today.

Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025

Citations: [2025 INSC 254], [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 240]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97306350/

https://www.caseciter.com/vishal-shah-vs-monalisha-gupta-2025-insc-254-domestic-violence-act-passport-impounding-irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-permanent-alimony/

Index of Domestic Violence Judgments is here. Divorce Judgments are here. Passport judgements are here.

Mohd. Ghouse Khan Vs State of Telangana on 15 Oct 2019

Posted on February 19, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on one Apex Court decision here and two High Court decisions here and here, a single judge bench of Telangana High Court pass this short Order.

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to direct the lower Court i.e., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Court, Hyderabad, to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.2956 of 2019 in C.C.No.505 of 2016 at an early date in the light of judgment reported in 2002 (1) Supreme Court Cases 253 and unreported Judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Syed Nazim Husain v. Additional Principal Judge in (W.P No. 56 of 2002) and the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Civil Application No.2939 of 2017 in W.P.No.14039 of 2017, dated 26.04.2018.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. An innocuous prayer has been sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner to issue a direction to the Court below to dispose of the aforesaid Crl.M.P.No.2956 of 2019 in C.C.No.505 of 2016 at an early date.
4. Having regard to the same, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Court, Hyderabad, to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.2956 of 2019 in C.C.No.505 of 2016, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without granting any adjournment.

Mohd. Ghouse Khan Vs State of Telangana on 15 Oct 2019

Index of Perjury judgments is here.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025

Posted on February 12, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A full bench of Supreme Court passed this order to a reference from a division bench.

From Para 6,

6. The following questions arise for our consideration:
(i)Whether a spouse of a marriage declared as void by a competent Court under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the 1955 Act?
(ii)Whether in a petition filed seeking a declaration under Section 11 of the 1955 Act, a spouse is entitled to seek maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the 1955 Act?

From Para 26,

26. An apprehension is the expression by the learned counsel for the appellant that if it is held that Section 25 of the 1955 Act also applies to void marriages, it will lead to a ridiculous result. He gave an example of a wife whose first marriage is subsisting, inducing another man to marry her. He also gave an example of a daughter getting married to her father. We must note that Sub-Section 1 of Section 25 uses the word “may”. A grant of a decree under Section 25 of the 1955 Act is discretionary. If the conduct of the spouse who applies for maintenance is such that the said spouse is not entitled to discretionary relief, the Court can always turn down the prayer for the grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Equitable considerations do apply when the Court considers the prayer for maintenance under Section 25. The reason is that Section 25 lays down that while considering the prayer for granting relief under Section 25, the conduct of the parties must be considered.

From Paras 27 and 28,

27. Section 24 confers a power on a matrimonial Court to grant interim maintenance in pending proceedings seeking a decree contemplated under the 1955 Act. The power is to be exercised pending the proceedings for a grant of a decree under Sections 9 to 13 of the 1955 Act. The conditions for applicability of Section 24 are:
(i) There must be a proceeding under the 1955 Act pending and
(ii) the court must come to a conclusion that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding.
26. Even if, prima facie, the matrimonial court finds the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned above are satisfied. The grant of relief under Section 24 is discretionary as the Section uses the word ‘may’. While deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, the Court will always consider the conduct of the party seeking the relief. It provides for issuing a direction to pay a reasonable amount.

Final conclusions:

29. Accordingly, we answer the questions as follows:
a. A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties. The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary; and
b. Even if a court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the 1955 Act, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied. While deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, the Court will always take into consideration the conduct of the party seeking the relief, as the grant of relief under Section 24 is always discretionary.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025

Citations: [2025 INSC 197]

Other Sources:

https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/permanent-alimony-interim-maintenance-can-be-granted-even-when-marriage-is-void-under-hindu-marriage-act-supreme-court-283751

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/spouse-of-void-marriage-under-hindu-marriage-act-entitled-to-permanent-alimonymaintenance-supreme-court

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=18508

https://lawtrend.in/hindu-marriage-act-alimony-and-maintenance-granted-even-if-marriage-is-void-supreme-court/

Index of Maintenance Judgements under HMA here.

Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023

Posted on February 7, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held as follows, while relying on landmark judgments like

From Para 10,

10. On the question of burden in a petition for divorce, burden of proof lies on the petitioner. However, the degree of probability is not one beyond reasonable doubt, but of preponderance.

From Para 17,

17. For a decade and half, the parties have been living separately. As fairly stated at the Bar, the marriage does not survive any longer, and the relationship was terminated otherwise except by a formal decree of divorce. The status quo continues, awaiting an approval from this Court.

From Para 19,

19. The Trial Court and the High Court adopted a hyper-technical and pedantic approach in declining the decree of divorce. It is not as if the respondent-Husband is willing to live with the appellant–Wife. The allegations made by him against her are as serious as the allegations made by her against him. Both the parties have moved away and settled in their respective lives. There is no need to continue the agony of a mere status without them living together.

Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. Vs V.Kumar Vamanrao and Ors on 04 Mar 2024

Posted on December 23, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court reiterated that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings.

From Para 15,

15. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings. It is not a case in which there was any error in the pleadings and the parties knowing their case fully well had led evidence to enable the Court to deal with that evidence. In the case in hand, specific amendment in the pleadings was sought by the plaintiffs with reference to 1965 partition but the same was rejected. In such a situation, the evidence with reference to 1965 partition cannot be considered.

Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. Vs V.Kumar Vamanrao and Ors on 04 Mar 2024

Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024

Posted on December 15, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench of MP High Court at Jabalpur, held that absence of specific date and time when the complainant-wife was subjected to the demand of dowry is sufficient to quash Dowry demand allegation.

From Para 6,

6. In the present case, this Court issued notices to the respondent No. 2. The report of the office reflects that the notices were served upon the respondent No. 2 yet respondent No. 2 has not appeared before this Court nor any one has filed any Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is also undisputed that prosecution was initially launched against the husband of petitioner No. 2 Rahul Gaur who has also expired after lodging of F.I.R. A perusal of F.I.R discloses the allegation against the present petitioners that they used to visit the complainant who was residing at Rachna Nagar and used to demand Rs.5 lakhs in order to buy a bigger house. F.I.R. discloses that complainant was not residing with the present petitioners and was residing at Rachna Nagar with her husband. According to complainant petitioner No. 3 also used to record conversation and used to humiliate her. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R that the petitioner No. 2 was acting on the instructions of petitioner No. 1. After registration of F.I.R the statement of the complainant and her parents were also recorded. The statement are there on record. Perusal of all the statement reflects that identical allegations have been levelled by all the witnesses. The allegations are not specific. There are no particulars like specific date and time when the complaint was subjected to the demand of dowry. As per complainant own showing the present petitioners were not residing with the present complainant but the complainant made an effort to demonstrate that the present petitioners used to visit her at place. The said particulars have not been disclosed by the complainant in the F.I.R. or there is any disclosure of such particulars in the entire statement of the witnesses.

Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held that when there is No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members.

From Para 7,

7. A perusal of the D.V.C. application would show that the aggrieved woman’s husband and in-laws and the siblings of her husband all are natives of Adapareddypalli Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. By the time the D.V.C. was filed the husband of the aggrieved woman has been working as a Software Engineer at Houstan, Texas, United States of America. Aggrieved woman’s in-laws are living at their native places. Siblings of the aggrieved woman’s husband are also employed and Sri M.Suresh Reddy is working at Bangalore and Sri M.Prasad Reddy working at Hyderabad or Tirupathi. The application in D.V.C. also indicates that subsequent to the marriage the spouses lived for some time at Adapareddypalli Village and thereafter they lived at Mysore of Karnataka State and thereafter they went Abroad and lived together at Houstan, Texas, United States of America. Finally the aggrieved woman and her child came back to India and they have been living with the woman’s parents at Aditya Nagar, Nellore in SPSR Nellore District. D.V.C. was filed at Nellore. All the above facts are not in dispute.

From Paras 9 and 10, (All the respondents, except husband, reside are different locations; No shared household)

9. Coming to the parents and siblings of her husband, at para No.4 of the application, the aggrieved woman states that respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein, who are siblings of her husband, used to visit Adapareddypalli Village during weekends when she was brought by her husband from Mysore to the native place. It is on those occasions, the siblings of her husband used to harass her for money and additional dowry.
10. Coming to her in-laws, the aggrieved person at pares No.5 of her application in D.V.C. mentions that all the cruelty and bad conduct of her husband used to be informed by her to her in-laws, but they used to support their son and all of them together demanded her to bring additional dowry. It is with those allegations, the D.V.C. was filed seeking various reliefs.

From Para 17,

17. The term shared household is hinged on the concept of intentional residence of the parties in one household. Mere fleeting or casual living does not make one a shared household vide Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahujal and Rajnesh v. Neha2. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioners cited the judgment of the then composite High Court in P.Sugunamma v. State of A.P.3. Referring to a similar situation where relatives of the husband have not been living along with the spouses but living elsewhere with periodical or sporadic visits, it was held that where any person who is so related who has been not living or had not lived together at any point of time with the aggrieved person in a shared household they cannot be said to be in domestic relationship. To the similar effect is the law spelt out by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra4. The averments in the application in D.V.C. of the aggrieved person do indicate that since the time of marriage it is the spouses who lived together under one roof at different places at all times and the remaining respondents who are their family members have been living at different other places and in their own respective houses. It is on occasions they paid visits to the spouses. Such occasional visits were only meant for those occasions and they were never intended and could not be intended to be visits making one to think that they are holding shared household. The definition of “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the Act, 2005 requires a domestic relationship and domestic relationship as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005 means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household. The facts mentioned in the application in D.V.C. clearly show that, that domestic relationship is absent between the aggrieved woman on one hand and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on the other hand. It is in that view of the matter, one has to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners that without there being any case disclosed by the application in D.V.C. permitting the learned Magistrate to take up further proceedings against them would be abuse of process of Court.

Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of DV Judgments is here.

Krishnanand Mishra and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand on 09 Aug 2023

Posted on September 27, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge of Jharkhand High Court quashed the false 498A IPC case against brother-in-law (Nandoi) and sister-in-law (Nanad).

From Paras 11 and 12,

11. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute with pious view for punishing cruelty of the husband, however, nowadays, the said Section is being misused which has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & another; [(2014) 8 SCC 273].
12. How the cases are lodged under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at the heat of the moment, that was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & another v. State of Jharkhand & another; [(2010) 7 SCC 667].

From Para 16,

16. Coming back to the facts of the present case. The Court finds that there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners and in one of the earlier case, final form was submitted in favour of the petitioners and during pendency of that case, the present case has been filed, which further suggest that maliciously the case has been lodged against the petitioners, who happened to be brother-in-law (Nandoi) and sister-in-law (Nanad) of the informant and they are residing at different place.

Krishnanand Mishra and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand on 09 Aug 2023

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Prerna on 16 Dec 2020

Posted on September 27, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Jharkhand High Court granted divorce to the husband, not on the ground of cruelty by wife, but on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

From Para 21,

21. We, therefore, proceed to answer this question as this issue has not yet been decided by this Court. We may not have to labour hard in this regard since the Full Bench of Bombay High Court has squarely dealt with the same issue concerning applicability of section 19(3) of the Family Courts’ Act, 1984 and section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Ac, 1955 on the period of limitation governing the filing of an appeal before the High Court from the suit s instituted under Hindu Marriage Act concerning the rights of the parties such as, dissolution of marriage, restitution of conjugal right, declaration of a marriage as null and void, judicial separation, etc.
This view has been further followed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Gunjan v. Praveen ( Supra), Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kuldeep Yadav v. Anita Yadav ( and Delhi High Court in the cases of R.R.D. (Supra) and DC (Supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. The
rationale behind taking such a view is that the Act of 1984 provides for a special forum relating to matrimonial dispute and for that, special procedure was devised for expeditious adjudication of the case. Provisions of section 20 thereof containing the obstante clause has to be construed in that context, whereas Parliament being conscious of the period of limitation of 30 days prescribed under section 19(3) of Family Courts’ Act, 1984 chose to make suitable amendment in section 39(4) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by enlarging the period of limitation from 30 days to 90 days keeping into account the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Savitri Pandey (supra) and
the rationale behind it. It is true that in a country like us where millions of people face financial hardship for litigating a matter and considerable time, money and energy have to be spent in pursuing the appeal given the difficult geographical condition, access to justice may become illusory in approaching the Court of Appeal within a small period of 30 day and amendment to section 28(4) introduced in 2003 to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 being the later enactment in point of time compared to the provisions of section 19(3) under the Family Courts’ Act, 1984, the intention of the Legislature to provide a larger time period for preferring an appeal needs to be furthered in order to resolve this inconsistency by adopting the principles of harmonious construction. We are, therefore, inclined to follow the principles laid down by the Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in this regard. The Hindu Marriage Act being a special legislation, the provisions governing the period of limitation for preferring an appeal arising out of the decisions of the Family Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 should be governed by larger period of limitation of 90 days prescribed under section 28(4) thereof. The second question posed for determination at the outset is also answered in the aforesaid manner in the affirmative. Having held so, the instant appeal does not suffer from any delay since the original petition was filed within a period of 90 days from the date of the impugned order i.e. 05.08.2015. As such, there is no delay in preferring the instant appeal. I.A. No. 539/2020 is disposed of.

Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Prerna on 16 Dec 2020

2023-Mar-31: The parties settled.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that since the parties have settled the matrimonial dispute in all respects and the disposal / withdrawal of two pending cases against each other is only a matter of time where both the parties are taking steps and joint compromise petition has been filed in one of them whereas in the other they would be filing the joint compromise petition, the appeal itself can be disposed of in terms of the settlement by dissolution of the marriage as they are living separately also.
Having regard to the aforesaid state of facts and that the parties have settled the matter amicably amongst themselves during course of mediation at JHALSA and have decided to live separately without any condition of permanent alimony, there is no point in keeping this appeal pending as no lis survives to be adjudicated upon. As such, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the settlement jointly signed by the parties on 7th November 2021 part of the mediation report dated 16th November 2021 bearing letter no.2513. As such, marriage between the parties is dissolved. Parties are at idem that the two pending cases shall be withdrawn or disposed of parties on the basis of the joint settlement between the parties. They have also agreed not to institute any future cases against each other. Parties should abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement. The settlement should form part of the decree. Decree accordingly.

Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Prerna on 31 Mar 2023

Index of judgements on Divorce Appeals is here.

N.Rajendran Vs S.Valli on 03 Feb 2022

Posted on September 26, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court granted divorce to the husband, not on the ground of cruelty by wife, but on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

From Para 29,

29. Article 142 of the Constitution undoubtedly clothes this Court with a reservoir of power to pass orders as would reach complete justice to the parties. What comes to mind is the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Undoubtedly, though there have been reports of the Law Commission in this regard recommending changes in the law, as of today the statute does not provide for irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground. However, this Court has on a number of occasions exercised its power and granted dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage based on Article 142. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent pointed out that this is not a case for exercising power under Article 142. He addressed this submission, reminding us of the conduct of the appellant throughout. He would submit that the respondent is completely without blame. She was always ready and willing. The findings as found by the High Court being confirmed, no occasion arises for this Court to exercise power under Article 142. We record this submission for as a prefatory remark to indicate that this is not a case where both parties are agreeable for a dissolution by way of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. But that then leads us to the question as to whether the consent of the parties is necessary to order dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. This again, is not res integra. We may notice that this Court has in a catena of decisions discussed this very aspect.

From Para 32,

32. Having found that consent of the parties is not necessary to declare a marriage dissolved, we cannot be unmindful of the facts as they exist in reality. There has been a marriage which took place on 31.10.2004. There is a child born in the said marriage. No doubt being in contravention of Section 15, it becomes a fait accompli but at the same time we do not reasonably perceive any possibility of the appellant and the respondent cohabiting as husband and wife. Whatever life was there in the marriage has been snuffed out by the passage of time, the appearance of new parties and vanishing of any bond between the parties. Not even the slightest possibility of rapprochement between the appellant and the respondent exists for reasons though which are entirely due to the actions of the appellant and for which the respondent cannot be blamed. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent has become dead. It can be described as a point of no return. There is no possibility of the appellant and the respondent stitching together any kind of a reasonable relationship as the tie between the parties has broken beyond repair and having regard to the facts of this case, we would think that it would be in the interest of justice and to do complete justice to the parties that we should pass an order dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent.

From Para 34,

34. Accordingly, while we affirm the judgment of the High Court and refuse to grant a decree of dissolution on the ground of cruelty by the respondent, we in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution declare the marriage between the appellant and the respondent as dissolved. This will be on condition that the appellant will pay a sum of Rs.20,000,00/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) to the respondent by way of a demand draft within a period of eight weeks from today. We further make it clear that this will be without prejudice to all the rights available to the son who was born in the marriage between the appellant and the respondent under law in regard to property rights. Till the amount is paid as aforesaid, the appellant will continue to be liable to pay Rs.7000/- per month to the respondent.

N.Rajendran Vs S.Valli on 03 Feb 2022

Index of Divorce judgements is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to

Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025

Mohd. Ghouse Khan Vs State of Telangana on 15 Oct 2019

Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025

Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023

Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. Vs V.Kumar Vamanrao and Ors on 04 Mar 2024

Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024

Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023

Krishnanand Mishra and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand on 09 Aug 2023

Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Prerna on 16 Dec 2020

N.Rajendran Vs S.Valli on 03 Feb 2022