Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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