Section 13B HMA: Can Supreme Court Grant Divorce by Mutual Consent Under Article 142?

The Supreme Court has held that Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act does not restrict its power to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent when the substantive conditions are fulfilled and the parties have reached a full and final settlement.

A Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said that when spouses are agreeable to part ways and have settled all their claims, the Court can directly grant a decree of divorce to prevent the continuation of long-drawn litigation.

Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant the couple a divorce by mutual consent and quash all pending civil and criminal proceedings between them, despite the cases being pending before different judicial forums.

When can the Supreme Court grant divorce by mutual consent under Article 142?

Court said that while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to do complete justice, it can grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent and quash ongoing civil and criminal proceedings between spouses, even when such proceedings are pending before other courts or judicial forums. 

The Bench said such discretion can be exercised when the marriage has reached an irretrievable breakdown and there is no possibility of reconciliation. 

"This discretion is exercised when the marriage has reached an irretrievable breakdown and there is no possibility of reconciliation, ensuring a permanent closure to long-standing litigations," the Bench said.

In the present case, the parties were married on December 4, 2016. However, due to irreconcilable differences, they started living separately from 2022 onwards.

Court also took note of the fact that as many as 18 civil and criminal cases were pending between the parties, including cases filed by their family members.

Why did the Supreme Court invoke Article 142 in this case?

The woman had approached the Supreme Court through transfer petitions, including one seeking the transfer to Mumbai of a case arising out of an FIR lodged in Cuttack.

During the proceedings, Court attempted to enable the parties to explore the possibility of reconciliation. Although mediation had not fructified on earlier occasions, the parties eventually arrived at an amicable settlement to bring an end to their long-standing disputes.

"Moreover, this court, in its endeavour to enable the parties to explore the possibility of reconciliation has arrived at an amicable settlement in order to give quietus to the long-standing litigation between the parties, although on earlier occasions, mediation did not fructify," the Bench said.

Court found merit in the husband's submission that the marriage had reached a "dead end" and there was no possibility of reconciliation. It held that real justice would be achieved by allowing his application under Article 142 and granting a divorce by mutual consent while quashing the pending cases.

The Bench also noted that both the woman and her husband had agreed to the divorce. The husband had already paid Rs 35 lakh to the woman as permanent alimony, which had been agreed upon as the full and final settlement of all her claims.

Supreme Court relies on Shilpa Sailesh, Rinku Baheti

The bench said it was appropriate to follow the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Sailesh and Rinku Baheti and exercise its powers under Article 142.

"We deem it appropriate to follow the dicta laid down by this court in Shilpa Sailesh and Rinku Baheti and exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in this case," the Bench said.

The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the husband's application and dissolved the marriage.

It also quashed all pending civil and criminal cases filed between the parties and directed them not to institute any fresh cases against each other.

Case Title: S Vs State of Odisha & Ors

Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan 

Date of Judgment: September 28, 2026