MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Discretion to dissolve marriage by mutual consent without following procedural: Constitutional Bench of SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Constitutional Law - Scope and ambit of power and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India - Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

On 01 May 2023, Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court, in a recent judgement SHILPA SAILESH Versus VARUN SREENIVASAN, clarified that it has the discretion to dissolve a marriage by mutual consent without following the procedural requirements of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It emphasized the need to balance equities between conflicting claims and to consider factors such as the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The court also acknowledged that it can grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even if the other spouse opposes the prayer, provided that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility of cohabitation.

Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India clarified the scope and ambit of its power and jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India regarding the dissolution of marriages.

The court addressed several key issues, including the power to depart from procedural requirements, the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Regarding the power and jurisdiction under Article 142(1), the court emphasized that it could deviate from procedural and substantive laws to ensure complete justice based on considerations of fundamental general and specific public policy. The court acts as a problem solver, balancing equities between conflicting claims. Additionally, the court has the power to dissolve marriages by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent and quashing other connected proceedings, including criminal prosecutions. However, this power must be exercised with care, caution, and consideration of various factors, particularly the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The court clarified that it has the discretion to dissolve a marriage by mutual consent without following the procedural requirements of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It emphasized the need to balance equities between conflicting claims and to consider factors such as the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The court also acknowledged that it can grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even if the other spouse opposes the prayer, provided that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility of cohabitation.

In relation to writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, the court held that filing a writ petition seeking divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown is not permissible. Parties should approach the superior tribunal/forum for redressal of grievances. Writ jurisdiction is meant for the enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and not for correcting judicial orders passed in pending proceedings.

SHILPA SAILESH VS VARUN SREENIVASAN 

Latest Legal News