Eyewitness Consistency is Key in Upholding Murder Convictions," Rules Rajasthan High Court State Cannot Take the Defence of Adverse Possession Against an Individual, Rules MP High Court in Land Encroachment Case Ignoring Crucial Evidence is an Illegal Approach: P&H High Court in Remanding Ancestral Property Dispute for Fresh Appraisal A Litigant Should Not Suffer for the Mistakes of Their Advocate: Madras High Court Overturns Rejection of Plaint in Specific Performance Suit 20% Interim Compensation is Not Optional in Cheque Bounce Appeals, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court Presumption of Innocence Fortified by Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Verdict in Accident Case Absence of Fitness Certificate Invalidates Insurance Claim, Rules MP High Court: Statutory Requirement Can't Be Ignored Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Protection for Live-In Couple Amidst Pending Divorce Proceedings Reassessment Must Be Based on New Tangible Material: Delhi High Court Quashes IT Proceedings Against Samsung India Kerala High Court Denies Bail to Police Officer Accused of Raping 14-Year-Old: 'Grave Offences Demand Strict Standards' Repeated Writ Petitions Unacceptable: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Land Acquisition Challenge Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Reassessment Notices Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers in Light of Faceless Assessment Scheme Adverse Possession Claims Fail Without Proof of Hostile Possession: Madras High Court Temple's Ancient Land Rights Upheld: Kerala High Court Rejects Adverse Possession Claims Expulsion Must Be Exercised in Good Faith — Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Adjudication in Partnership Dispute Instigation Requires Reasonable Certainty to Incite the Consequence: Delhi High Court in Suicide Case

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

Similar News