Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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