Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

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