Lack Of Title Documents In Lal Dora Land Does Not Relieve Plaintiff From Proving Continuous Possession To Claim Ownership: Delhi High Court Unauthorized Video Recording Of Court Proceedings Without Prior Permission Amounts To Contempt Of Court: Bombay High Court Finality Of Litigation | State Cannot Re-Litigate Settled Decrees By Alleging Collusion After Affirmation Up To Supreme Court: Allahabad High Court SC/ST Act | Court Cannot Determine Conversion Status To Quash FIR Before Completion Of Investigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Absence Of Manufacturing Activity And Dilapidated Condition Of Premises Constitute Valid Grounds For Closure: Bombay High Court Non-Disclosure Of Existing Insurance Policies In Proposal Form Entitles Insurer To Repudiate Claim: Calcutta High Court Will Interpretation | Bequest Of "Above Said Property" Includes Entire Estate, Not Just Descriptive Portions Mentioned Therein: Delhi High Court Limitation Act | Court Can Balance Equities By Denying Interest For Delay Period In Land Acquisition Appeals: Gujarat High Court Article 21 Constitution Of India | Personal Liberty Of Detenue Cannot Be Curtailed Without Authority Of Law Post-Acquittal: Jharkhand High Court Order 8 Rule 1A CPC | Trial Court Should Not Reject Documents Merely For Delay If Foundation Is Laid In Pleadings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order XXII CPC Applies To SCC Suits; Rule 25 Of U.P. Urban Buildings Rules Does Not Govern Substitution Where Act Is Inapplicable: Allahabad High Court Recruitment Authorities Cannot Insist On Impossible Experience Criteria: Karnataka High Court Rules Against Rejection Of Motor Vehicle Inspector Candidates Order 38 Rule 8 CPC | Claim Petition Cannot Be Allowed Ex-Parte Without Adjudication On Merits: Kerala High Court Succession Certificate Under Section 372 Indian Succession Act Cannot Be Granted When Title Is Subject To Intricate Questions Of Fact And Law: Madras High Court SARFAESI Act | District Magistrate Cannot Adjudicate Disputes Between Borrower And Secured Creditor While Assisting Possession: Madhya Pradesh High Court Termination Based On Caste Status Without Cancellation Of Original Certificate Is Legally Unsustainable: Orissa High Court Section 13 Punjab Village Common Lands Act | Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted In Private Injunction Suits Where Title Against Panchayat Is Not Sought: High Court Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act  | Equal Opportunity Policy Of Employer Is Mandatory; Routine Transfer Policy Must Yield To Special Provisions For Caregivers: Rajasthan High Court Compensation Must Be Just, Not A Pittance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Award In Motor Accident Claim Registration Act | Sub-Registrar Has No Power To Adjudicate Title Or Refuse Registration Based On Unauthorized Layouts: Telangana High Court Section 50 NDPS Act | Failure To Individually Communicate Right To Be Searched Before Gazetted Officer Or Magistrate Vitiates Conviction: Telangana High Court Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC | Civil Suit For Specific Performance Cannot Bypass Execution Proceedings When Breach Of Lok Adalat Compromise Is Alleged: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 269 BNS | Court Can Order Registration Of Fresh FIR Against Accused Who Absconds After Grant Of Bail: Madras High Court Eviction Order Not Vitiated If Based On Sufficient Independent Ground Of Unauthorized Subletting Under Section 4 Of Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act: Bombay 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