Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Supreme Court Upholds ‘Lawful Settlement’ in Matrimonial Dispute, Grants Mutual Consent Divorce

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment by the Supreme Court of India, presided over by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a matrimonial dispute involving a transfer petition and a mutual consent divorce reached its conclusion. The bench, acknowledging the complexities of marital discords, stated, “the same are lawful and there is no legal impediment in accepting the same,” thereby emphasizing the legitimacy of the settlement agreement reached between the parties.

The case, filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, initially sought the transfer of a matrimonial case from the Family Court in Belagavi, Karnataka, to Mumbai, Maharashtra. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner and respondent, identified in court documents as Vrushali and Dinesh, respectively, engaged in mediation and reached a mutual agreement for the dissolution of their marriage.

This landmark decision was not just about the transfer of the case but also revolved around the mutual consent divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The agreement included detailed financial settlements and property arrangements, including a sum of ₹7,50,000 paid by the petitioner to the respondent and arrangements regarding local body taxes and CIDCO transfer charges.

In their order, the Justices meticulously outlined the terms of the settlement, which also included provisions about a gold loan and property transfer. The court’s acceptance of the settlement as lawful played a crucial role in the resolution of this case. The mutual consent divorce was granted under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, marking a significant step in the court’s approach to marital dispute resolutions.

Moreover, the judgment led to the quashing of all proceedings initiated by each party against the other, emphasizing the finality and comprehensive nature of the settlement. This case sets a precedent for how mutual consent and lawful agreements can pave the way for amicable resolutions in marital disputes.

Date of Decision: 10 November 2023

VRUSHALI VS DINESH

Latest Legal News