Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

However Dark the Past May Be, It Cannot Hold the Future Captive: Supreme Court Orders IPS Officer to Tender Public Apology in Divorce Settlement

23 July 2025 12:53 PM

By: sayum


In an extraordinary move aimed at achieving “complete justice” and emotional closure, the Supreme Court of India invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage between an IPS officer Shivangi Bansal and her estranged husband Sahib Bansal, and ordered the publication of an unconditional apology from the wife to the husband and his family across national newspapers and social media.

The apology, dictated word-for-word by the Court, is to appear in one national English and one Hindi daily, and also be circulated through platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and others, reflecting the Court’s emphasis on public closure after a long-drawn-out legal battle. In words crafted to heal, the apology begins:

“I, Shivangi Bansal/Shivangi Goel… hereby sincerely apologise… I sincerely hope that this apology can be a step towards finding some peace and closure for all of us.”

The Court observed: “The expression of apology herein shall not be construed as an admission of liability… and shall not ever be used against [her] before any Court or Authority.”

This deeply personal and publicly mandated act was part of a comprehensive settlement between the parties, which included the quashing of all 25+ litigations, mutual waiver of maintenance and property rights, and a commitment never to initiate litigation or interfere in each other’s lives again.

The apex court’s ruling came in the context of multiple transfer petitions and special leave petitions filed by both sides, each alleging harassment, filing criminal cases against the other, and involving extended family members in a spiral of accusations. With emotions, reputations, and liberty all having been placed on the line, the parties finally opted for a comprehensive settlement.

“The Child Is at No Fault Whatsoever”: Custody Granted to Mother, Father Gets Structured Visitation

The couple married on 5th December 2015 and had a daughter, Raina, in 2016. After a separation in 2018, the child had been living with the mother. The Court, while recognizing this status quo, ruled:

“It is hereby ordered that the mother shall have the custody of the child… The father, Sahib Bansal and his family shall have supervised visitation rights…”

Importantly, the Court laid down a detailed structure for these visits, including monthly meetings and shared vacation time, but warned:

“Neither of the parties shall, in any manner, create any hindrance or impediment in the visitation rights.”

“No Order for Maintenance Is Being Passed”: Wife Waives All Claims to Alimony and Property

In a rare but voluntary move, the wife, an IPS officer, declared that she would not seek any financial support from her husband:

“The Wife has voluntarily agreed to forgo and waive her claim to any alimony or maintenance… and shall have no claim over any moveable and immoveable property…”

She also undertook to bear all expenses for raising their daughter, leading the Court to quash the Allahabad High Court’s prior direction to the husband to pay ₹1.5 lakh per month in child support.

“Let the Past Not Hold the Future Captive”: Apex Court Quashes All Cases Filed by Either Side

The bench took decisive action to halt the legal war, stating:

“To bring an end to the protracted legal battle… all pending criminal and civil litigations… are hereby quashed and/or withdrawn.”

The Court invoked Article 142 to wipe out an extraordinary list of proceedings—ranging from domestic violence cases and dowry harassment FIRs to defamation complaints and custody battles—that had been filed not only by the couple but also by and against their relatives. The Court added sternly:

“If any such proceeding is found to be initiated or pending at a later stage, the same would be tantamount to contempt of this Hon'ble Court.”

“Unconditional Apology Must Be Published in National Newspapers and Social Media”: A Rare and Public Gesture of Closure

As part of the final terms of settlement, the Supreme Court directed the wife to tender an unconditional public apology to the husband and his family for the trauma caused by the litigation. The apology, as dictated by the Court, was to be published in one national English and one Hindi newspaper, and on all major social media platforms.

The Court provided the exact text of the apology, which included: “I sincerely hope that this apology can be a step towards finding some peace and closure for all of us… However dark the past may be, it cannot hold the future captive.”

Importantly, the Court made clear that this apology: “Shall not be construed as an admission of liability… It is without prejudice and shall not ever be used against [her] before any Court or Authority.”

“No More Complaints, No More Litigation, No More Harm”: Both Parties Barred from Interfering in Each Other’s Life and Career

Recognizing the professional vulnerabilities of an IPS officer, the Court directed: “Shivangi Bansal shall never use her position and power as an IPS officer… against the husband, his Family Members and Relatives… in any manner whatsoever.”

Further, the Court imposed a permanent injunction on both parties from initiating any future legal proceedings, declaring: “Default on the part of any party will amount to contempt giving a right to the other party to directly approach this Court.”

“We Invoke Our Powers Under Article 142”: Marriage Dissolved by Supreme Court

The Court concluded with a definitive invocation of its constitutional authority: “We deem it appropriate to invoke our power under Article 142… and order for dissolution of marriage between Shivangi Bansal and Sahib Bansal.”

In doing so, the Court also expunged adverse remarks made earlier by the Allahabad High Court against the wife and granted police protection to the husband and his family.

In closing the final chapter of this bitter marital saga, the Court underscored its message of reconciliation and emotional healing, not just legal closure.

Date of Decision: 22 July 2025

 

Latest Legal News