Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

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