Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

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