Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Using Article 142: ₹25 Lakh Settlement Ends All Pending Cases

22 January 2025 8:11 PM

By: sayum


In a significant decision on January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage of Unmesha Rout (Petitioner) and Nishant Panwar (Respondent). The Court ensured an amicable resolution of all disputes between the estranged couple, quashing multiple pending litigations in light of a mutual settlement reached by the parties.

The Supreme Court, using its extraordinary powers under Article 142, dissolved the marriage solemnized on February 14, 2021, in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. The dissolution was based on the parties' agreement to settle their disputes, with the respondent-husband paying ₹25 lakhs to the petitioner-wife as a full and final settlement.

An FIR alleging cruelty, dowry harassment, and other criminal charges under Sections 498A, 307, 394 of the IPC, and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The respondent-husband handed over ₹25 lakhs to the petitioner-wife as a full and final settlement—₹5 lakhs had been paid earlier, and the balance ₹20 lakhs was given in court on the date of the final hearing.

Transfer Petition Disposed of as Infructuous:

The petition filed by the wife to transfer the Restitution of Conjugal Rights proceedings from Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, to Bhubaneswar, Odisha, was rendered infructuous due to the amicable settlement.

The petitioner-wife, Unmesha Rout, had filed a Transfer Petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking to transfer a Restitution of Conjugal Rights case (filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act) from Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, to her hometown in Bhubaneswar, Odisha.

While the case was pending, the parties were referred to mediation by the Supreme Court. Although initial attempts at mediation failed, the Court facilitated direct negotiations between the parties, leading to an agreement to settle the matter amicably.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra noted the following:

Matrimonial disputes often drag on for years, causing emotional distress to the parties involved. The Court emphasized the need for finality in such matters, especially when the parties mutually agree to settle their differences.

“Prolonged litigation only serves to exacerbate hostility and stress, which should be avoided at all costs, particularly in personal matters.”

The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows it to pass orders necessary for rendering complete justice in any matter before it. The bench stated:

“This is a fit case for exercising powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and quash all pending litigations, ensuring peace and closure for the parties.

The Court observed that the settlement between the parties was comprehensive and left no room for future disputes. The ₹25 lakh settlement amount, paid in full, was accepted by the petitioner-wife as a complete resolution of all her claims.

The marriage between Unmesha Rout and Nishant Panwar was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Article 142.

All pending litigations between the parties were quashed, ensuring a complete closure of disputes.

The Court directed the Registry to draw a decree in terms of the settlement.

The decision showcases the Supreme Court’s proactive approach in resolving matrimonial disputes through mutual settlement. It reinforces the principle that litigation should not become an unending process and highlights the Court’s willingness to use its plenary powers under Article 142 to deliver complete justice.

The Supreme Court’s ruling brings an end to the contentious disputes between Unmesha Rout and Nishant Panwar. By dissolving the marriage and quashing all pending cases, the Court has ensured that the parties can move forward with their lives free from the burden of prolonged litigation.

Date of decision : January 9, 2025

Latest Legal News