GRANTS BAIL IN NDPS CASE, HOLDS DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS ALONE INSUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION Foreign Conviction Does Not Shield Accused from Indian Prosecution: Uttarakhand High Court Denies Bail in Bitcoin Money Laundering Case Forfeiture of Earnest Money Must Be Reasonable, No Interest Payable If Buyer Cancels Due to Falling Property Prices: Supreme Court IBPS | Exam Bodies Must Provide Scribes and Extra Time to All Disabled Candidates, Not Just Those With Benchmark Disabilities: Supreme Court Minor Discrepancies in Witness Statements Do Not Discredit Their Reliability," Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court in Murder Case Suspicion, No Matter How Strong, Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Karnataka High Court Acquits Two in Murder Case Prolonged Incarceration Violates Article 21 – Bail Granted Despite NDPS Act Restrictions: Kerala High Court Kolkata Book Fair Not a Public Function: Calcutta High Court Dismisses VHP's Writ Petition A Gift With Conditions is Not a Gift in Perpetuity – Violation of Purpose Mandates Reversion: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Demand Advocate in Domestic Enquiry Unless Employer’s Representative is a Legally Trained Mind: Bombay High Court Milkman as Scribe Raises Eyebrows: High Court Dismisses Property Claim Over Suspicious Will Contractor Bound by Contractual Terms, No Right to Claim Damages After Accepting Extensions: Supreme Court On Failure of the Highest Bidder, Property Must Be Re-Auctioned, Private Negotiation Impermissible: Karnataka High Court Preventive Detention Without Procedural Compliance is Unconstitutional: Kerala High Court Quashes Detention Order Under KAAPA Courts Are for Litigants, Not the Other Way Around: Madras High Court Overhauls Family Court Procedures Landlord is the Best Judge of His Requirement; Tenant Cannot Dictate Alternative Properties: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction Khatedari Rights Cannot Be Claimed Over SC Land Through Adverse Possession: Rajasthan High Court A Law Cannot Be Struck Down on Overruled Precedents: Calcutta High Court Upholds West Bengal Entry Tax Act Producer of Film Is First Owner of Soundtrack Unless Contract States Otherwise: Delhi High Court Affirms Saregama’s Rights Mere Refusal to Repay a Loan Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Under Section 306 IPC: Allahabad High Court Mere Re-Appreciation of Evidence Is Not Permissible in a Second Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Merely Alleging Money Laundering Without Evidence is an Abuse of Legal Process: Bombay High Court Imposed 1 Lakh Cost on ED Right to Private Defence is Not Absolute and Cannot Extend to Inflicting Fatal Injuries: Punjab and Haryana High Court Failure to Pay Business Dues Does Not Constitute a Criminal Offense: Calcutta High Court Quashes Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust Proceedings Income Tax | Reassessment Notices Must Pass Surviving Time Test—Delhi High Court Directs AOs to Comply with Supreme Court's Rajeev Bansal Ruling Perjury Allegations Against Wife and Counsel Dismissed; Court Imposes Costs for Frivolous Litigation: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Permits Protest on Temple Land Encroachment Issue, Imposes Restrictions for Public Order A Senior Citizen’s Right to Peace Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Permissive Occupant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Eviction of Son-in-Law from Father-in-Law’s House Widows Applying on Merit Cannot Be Denied Relaxation Under Two-Child Norm: Rajasthan High Court

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