Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Nomination In FIR Not Enough For Vicarious Liability: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Under Section 149 IPC Demanding Separations From Depending In-Laws Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Death": Orissa High Court Rules Blacklisting Of Contractor Without Specific Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice Delay Irrespective Of Number Of Years Ought To Be Condoned In Land Acquisition Matters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 3953 Days Delay 'Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer': Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Notary's Apology With ₹2 Lakh Welfare Cost, Directs Display Board Against Notarizing Marriages

Marriage Totally Unworkable, Emotionally Dead and Beyond Salvation – Supreme Court Grants Divorce Under Article 142

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court today dissolved the marriage of Jatinder Kumar Sapra and Anupama Sapra, which had been under strife for over two decades, citing irretrievable breakdown as the ground for dissolution.

Legal Context: The apex court utilized its discretion under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to grant the divorce despite the specific grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 not being fully substantiated with evidence. This discretionary power is exercised to ensure “complete justice” when conventional remedies are inadequate.

Facts of the Case: Jatinder Kumar Sapra and Anupama Sapra, married on October 14, 1991, found their marriage mired in bitterness, mutual accusations of cruelty, and a prolonged separation since January 2002. Both the Family Court and the High Court had previously denied the divorce petition citing insufficient grounds under the existing marital laws.

Irretrievable Breakdown: The Court, led by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, noted that the marriage was “totally unworkable, emotionally dead, and beyond salvation,” conditions that necessitated a divorce to prevent further legal and emotional turmoil.

Attempts at Reconciliation: The court acknowledged several failed attempts at mediation and reconciliation over the years, affirming that no further efforts could salvage the marital relationship.

Economic and Social Considerations: The justices considered the stable financial status of the appellant, who had a significant career in multinational corporations, and the adulthood and independence of their children, which lessened familial dependencies.

Permanent Alimony: An alimony of Rs. 50,00,000 was set, reflecting the appellant’s financial capacity and aiming to secure the respondent’s future.

Decision: The court decreed the dissolution of marriage based on its findings of an irretrievable breakdown, directing the appellant to pay alimony in five installments from May to September 2024. The divorce decree will be issued once the full alimony payment is confirmed.

Date of Decision: May 6, 2024

Jatinder Kumar Sapra vs. Anupama Sapra

Latest Legal News