A division bench of Apex Court passed this decision. Not sure, why this is a reportable judgment!
Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024Citations:
Other Sources:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/669778a11312582eb2f9e52c
Index of Maintenance Judgments under DV Act is here. Divorce Judgments here. DV Judgements here.
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 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,
Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 202545. 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.
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.
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,
N.Rajendran Vs S.Valli on 03 Feb 202234. 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.
Index of Divorce judgements is here.
A division bench at Allahabad High Court held that,
From Para 3,
3. In brief, it may be noted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 2.3.2000. At that time, the appellant was working as Class-III employee at the Rajkiya Bachat Karyalaya, at Bareilly. His father and siblings were residing at their house at Unnao. The family of the appellant belongs to Kanpur Nagar. According to the respondent/husband, the appellant resided at her matrimonial home for a few days, but raised complaint of not feeling safe in the company of only male family members of the respondent, his mother having died almost 20 years earlier.Occasioned by that, the respondent took the appellant to the city of his work, at Bareilly. Even there, the appellant, did not stay for long. She now cited reasons to stay at Kanpur Nagar as she was a practising advocate. Thus, the appellant is described to have left for Kanpur Nagar. However, intermittent cohabitation of the parties at Bareilly, Kanpur Nagar and Unnao, during that period, is not disputed. Then, according to the respondent, he applied for and consequently, was transferred to Kannauj. This transfer, respondent had sought only to make it possible for the respondent to stay at Kanpur Nagar with him. Upon being thus transferred, the respondent took up a rented accommodation at Kanpur Nagar and he used to commute to Kannauj from there every day. However, the appellant still did not stay with him for long. Though intermittently, the appellant did stay with the respondent at his rented premises, she preferred to stay at her parental house. In that context, it is the further case of the respondent that the appellant wanted the respondent to stay with her at her parental home at Kanpur Nagar. When the appellant did not agree to live with the respondent at the rented accommodation taken by him at Kanpur Nagar, he vacated that premises and started staying at Unnao, at his parental home from where too he could easily commute to Kannauj, in connection with his work.
From Para 7,
7. It is also the case of the respondent that the appellant offered cruel behaviour towards all family members of the respondent, from very beginning. Not only she would use harsh words andabusive language in normal household affairs, it was specifically stated by the respondent that the appellant wanted the respondentto abide absolutely, by her wishes. Failing that she threatened to level false allegations against the respondent and his father, including allegation of illicit relationship between the respondentand his real sister. While no such case was ever lodged by the appellant and no such complaint appears to have been made by the appellant to any authority, at the same time, it is on record that after the institution of the divorce suit on 01.08.2006, the appellant instituted Criminal Case No. 687 of 2006 on 14.11.2006 i.e. after three months of the institution of the divorce case. Remarkably,though allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty were made in the First Information Report, there is no prior complaint or First Information Report of such allegation ever made by the appellant,over six years of marriage between the parties.
From Para 11, (Desertion is established)
11. During his extensive cross-examination, the above noted aspects proven by the respondent during his examination-in-chief were not controverted or doubted. We have made reference to those facts to bring out the extent to which the efforts had been made by the respondent to prove desertion offered by the appellant. In absence of any doubt being raised during the extensive cross-examination of the respondent, we do not find any error in the finding of the learned Court below to believe the testimony of the respondent. Sitting in first appeal, we are ourselves inclined to draw firm conclusion that the appellant had no will or desire to live in matrimony with the respondent either at his parental home or at his place of work, or even otherwise at Kanpur Nagar. She only desired to stay at her parental home.
From Para 17,
17. In face of Criminal Revision proceeding pending, against the order of conviction passed in the appeal proceedings, we are not recording any firm conclusion with respect to falsity or otherwise the allegations made in the criminal case, at the same time, in the context of facts and circumstances proven in this case, the critical element of cruelty is found in existence. Desertion suffered over long years in a young marriage, accompanied with harsh words spoken and complete lack of desire and effort on part of the deserting spouse to cohabit as also lodging of criminal case alleging demand of dowry only after institution of divorce case proceeding by the other spouse and pursuing it in appeal to secure conviction (after initial acquittal) does indicate in any case, the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down.
From Para 19,
Arti Tiwari Vs Sanjay Kumar Tiwari on 04 Sep 202419. In view of the facts noted above we do not find it a fit case to provide for permanent alimony. The daughter born to the parties has attained the age of majority.
A division bench of Apex Court terminated a dead marriage u/A 142 of Constitution of India and said as follows,
From Para 5,
Rajib Kumar Roy Vs Sushmita Saha on 21 Aug 2023…
…
Continued bitterness, dead emotions and long separation, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, can be construed as a case of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, which is also a facet of “cruelty”. In Rakesh Raman v. Kavita reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 497, this is precisely what was held, that though in a given case cruelty as a fault, may not be attributable to one party alone and hence despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage keeping the parties together amounts to cruelty on both sides. Which is precisely the case at hand.
Whatever may be the justification for the two living separately, with so much of time gone by, any marital love or affection, which may have been between the parties, seems to have dried up. This is a classic case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In view of the Constitution Bench Judgment of this court in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544 which has held that in such cases where there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage then dissolution of marriage is the only solution and this Court can grant a decree of divorce in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
A division bench of Delhi High Court held that Family Courts cannot grant divorce on ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage.
From Para 4,
4. The Respondent also alleged that from the very first day of marriage, Appellant created scenes at night hours and most of the times did not allow him to enjoy his conjugal rights. She refused him to have access to her and inflicted cruelty upon him. He further alleged that he was allowed by the Appellant only 30-35 times (approximately) to enjoy conjugal relations since their marriage.
From Para 7 and 8,
7. In respect of the ground of cruelty, the Family Court has held that “there was no normal and healthy sexual relationships between (Respondent) and his wife (Appellant) and same has resulted in striking at the very foundation of their marriage. It has been well settled that normal and healthy sexual Relationships between both spouse is one of the basic ingredients for happy and harmonious marriage as the marriage without sex is an anathema. Sex is foundation of marriage and without a vigorous and harmonious sexual activity it would be impossible for any marriage to continue.”
8. The Family Court after holding that there was denial of conjugal relations, noticed that parties had been living separately for more than 11 years and held that the marriage had broken down beyond repair and thus held that the Respondent had successfully established cruelty and thus granted a decree of divorce against the Appellant.
From Para 17,
17. Said ground is clearly not available to the Respondent and the Family Court has erred in returning a finding that there is denial of conjugal relationship by the Appellant. The allegations of the Respondent of denial of conjugal relationship are vague and without any specifics. He has alleged that he was allowed by the Appellant only 30-35 times (approximately) to enjoy conjugal relations since their marriage. This clearly shows that there was never any complete denial.
From Para 25,
Deepti Vs Anil Kumar on 19 Sep 202325. In terms of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shilpa Sailesh (supra), the power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to both the parties. Such a power is not vested in the High Courts leave alone the Family Courts.
26. In the instant case, the Family Court has merely considered the fact that the parties have lived separately for 11 years and granted divorce on the ground of breakdown of marriage. Such an exercise of powers is not conferred on the Family Court. Family Courts have to restrict their considerations to the parameters of the provision of grant of divorce strictly in accordance with the Act. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground in the Act.
27. Even the Supreme Court while considering exercise of discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India takes into account several factors and longevity of period is only one of them. Reference may be had to Para 41 of Shilpa Sailesh (supra) extracted hereinabove. Supreme Court has placed a word of caution that “grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by this Court is not a matter of right, but a discretion which is to be exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that ‘complete justice’ is done to both parties. It is obvious that this Court should be fully convinced and satisfied that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage is the right solution and the only way forward. That the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to be factually determined and firmly established.”
28. In the present case, the Family Court has erred in travelling beyond the scope of its powers to grant divorce.
A division bench of Delhi High Court granted divorce to a couple who are separated for over 17 years…
From Para 17,
17. The divorce has been sought on the ground of cruelty. While “physical cruelty” is visible and easy to comprehend and determine, the more challenging aspect is “mental agony” which has been recognized as part of “cruelty” which once established, is a valid ground of divorce. The contours of “mental cruelty” were defined in case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1956 can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put-up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the party.What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case.
From Paras 22 and 23,
22. During the trial, the allegations had not been established as held by the Order of Ld. Mahila Court, South District and amounts to a clear and categorical character assassination of the appellant as well as his family members.
23. It is not under challenge that the criminal proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the parties. A Police Station is not the best of places for anyone to visit. It is a source of mental harassment and trauma each time he was required to visit the Police Station, like the “Damocles Sword” hanging over his head, not knowing when a case would be registered against him and he would be arrested. The respondent had done everything to get the appellant and his family entrapped in the criminal case. Such conduct of making false allegations and constant threat of being summoned to Police Station are the acts which severely impact the mental balance and all the acts of cruelty.
From Para 27,
Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 202327. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the “Fault theory”, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented with concrete instances of human behaviour as they bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of the fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period continuous separation, it may be fairly surmised that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. The Family Court ought to have visualised that preservation of such a marriage is totally unworkable which has ceased to be effective and would be a greater source of misery for the parties. The Family Court ought to have considered that a human problem can be properly resolved by adopting a human approach. In the instant case, not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. Otherwise, there may be a ray of hope for the parties that after a passage of time (after obtaining a decree of divorce) the parties may psychologically and emotionally settle down and start a new chapter in life.
Citations: [2023 SCC ONLINE DEL 5122]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186009176/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64e4d541d2752322a69ddb3d
https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/constant-threat-of-arrest-and-wifes-false-allegations-has-become-source-of-mental-cruelty-delhi-hc-grants-divorce-to-aggrieved-husband-1491232
Index of Divorce Judgments here.
A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,
From Para 12,
12. Marriages under old Hindu Law are considered as a sacrament and did not recognize the concept of divorce. Once this union of marriage was established, the ties were for the entire life of the spouses which could not be severed under any circumstances. Complete shift of paradigm from the social ethos happened with the enactment of the Act, 1955 which not only introduced the concept of ‘monogamy’ but also defined certain grounds on which alone divorce could be granted. Despite this phenomenal change in the social ethos, the Act, 1955 recognises the ground of divorce only on “Fault Theory”. Unless the opposite party was shown to be at fault, whether it was for ‘Adultery’, ‘Cruelty’, ‘Desertion’ or other grounds as specified under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, no divorce can be granted. With the passage of time, experience has shown that many a times, the marriages do not work because of incompatibility and temperamental differences, for which neither party can be blamed. However, since only Fault Theory prevails, these parties end up warring with each other for years to come only because they have no way of exiting this relationship. While many debates have been held to introduce “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground, it has not met the approval and consent of the legislation. We are bound by limits as defined under the Act, 1955 and unless the fault of the other spouse is shown, the parties are left to suffer acrimonious relationship with no way to exit. In this backdrop, the facts of the present case may be considered.
From Para 30,
Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 202330. We conclude that in the present case the parties are living separately for 15 years now; there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered which false allegations, police reports and criminal trial has become a source of mental cruelty and any insistence either to continue this relationship or modifying the Family Court’s order would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties. Living together in a marriage is not an irreversible act. But marriage is a tie between two parties and if this tie is not working under any circumstances, we see no purpose in postponing the inevitability of the situation.
Citations: [2023 DHC 6384-DB]
Other Sources:
Index of Divorce judgments here.
A division bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the wife committed mental cruelty upon husband and therefore granted divorce to husband. But Court also ordered payment Rs.15,000/- per month to wife as alimony.
From Para 24,
Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 202224. The appellant is a Doctor and as stated during the course of hearing, the respondent wife is a private teacher. Therefore, facing a criminal case would always castigate a stigma in the Society. The report u/s 498-A of the IPC cannot be used as a tool to teach a lesson to the family members of the husband as it may adversely affect the future prospects of a young professional and it may take long time to fill up the gap. Therefore, we are of the opinion that false accusations made by the wife against the entire family members under section 498-A would amount to mental cruelty and such conduct of respondent wife which inflicts upon the appellant husband such mental pain and suffering would make it not possible for her to live with the appellant husband.Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022
A Constitution Bench of 5 judges held as follows,
From Para 40,
40. In view of our findings recorded above, we are of the opinion that the decisions of this Court in Manish Goel (supra), Neelam Kumar (supra), Darshan Gupta (supra), Hitesh Bhatnagar (supra), Savitri Pandey (supra) and others have to be read down in the context of the power of this Court given by the Constitution of India to do ‘complete justice’ in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India. In consonance with our findings on the scope and ambit of the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, in the context of matrimonial disputes arising out of the Hindu Marriage Act, we hold that the power to do‘complete justice’ is not fettered by the doctrine of fault and blame, applicable to petitions for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. As held above, this Court’s power to dissolve marriage on settlement by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, as well as quash and set aside other proceedings, including criminal proceedings, remains and can be exercised.
From Para 41,
Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 202341. Lastly, we must express our opinion on whether a party can directly canvass before this Court the ground of irretrievable breakdown by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. In Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar65, a two judges’ bench of this Court has rightly held that any such attempt must be spurned and not accepted, as the parties should not be permitted to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, or for that matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, and seek divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The reason is that the remedy of a person aggrieved by the decision of the competent judicial forum is to approach the superior tribunal/forum for redressal of his/her grievance. The parties should not be permitted to circumvent the procedure by resorting to the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be. Secondly, and more importantly, relief under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can be sought to enforce the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India, and on the proof of infringement thereof. Judicial orders passed by the court in, or in relation to, the proceedings pending before it, are not amenable to correction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.66 Therefore, a party cannot file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and seek relief of dissolution of marriage directly from this Court. While we accept the said view, we also clarify that reference in Poonam (supra) to Manish Goel (supra) and the observation that it is questionable whether the period of six months for moving the second motion can be waived has not been approved by us.
Citations: [2023 SCC OnLine SC 544]
Other Sources:
Earlier Matter is here.
Index of Divorce judgments is here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 7896 access attempts in the last 7 days.
