Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation

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