NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court “Possession Follows Title” Not An Absolute Rule When Ownership Is Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court ORDER 30 CPC | Appeal Filed by Firm Does Not Abate on Death of Partners: Calcutta High Court Bank Cannot Freeze Customer’s Account Based on Third-Party Dispute: Calcutta High Court Slams Axis Bank

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage: Mutual Consent Divorce Amid Irretrievable Breakdown: Quashes Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve a marriage and quash all associated criminal and civil proceedings, citing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The case, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1735/2022, involved Garvita Tamrakar as the petitioner and Abhishek Singh as the respondent.

The Court observed that "the marriage inter se the parties did not work out almost from the very inception, with usual allegations and counter allegations," highlighting the challenging nature of the relationship.

Recognizing the mutual consent of both parties to seek divorce, the Court appreciated their approach to resolving the dispute amicably. The judgment also mentioned that the parties had agreed to a financial settlement, with the respondent, Mr. Abhishek Singh, agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to the petitioner, Ms. Garvita Tamrakar. The payment terms included an initial sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid within one week and the balance within a maximum period of three months.

Regarding the return of important documents, the Court addressed the issue of the petitioner's passport and other documents. Mr. Abhishek Singh, the respondent, undertook to return the passport promptly, and efforts would be made to locate and return other documents within a week.

The judgment was hailed as a significant step in resolving disputes related to marriages, emphasizing mutual consent and amicable settlements. The Court's decision to exercise Article 142 of the Constitution showcased its commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness in family law matters.

This judgment serves as a notable example of the Supreme Court's willingness to utilize its constitutional powers for the greater good, facilitating the resolution of complex family disputes and allowing individuals to move forward with their lives.

Date of Decision: SEPTEMBER 22, 2023

GARVITA TAMRAKAR vs ABHISHEK SINGH      

Latest Legal News