Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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