Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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