Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that it can depart from the procedure as well as the substantive laws, as long as the decision is exercised based on considerations of fundamental, general and specific public policy.

Citing the Constitution bench decision in Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan (2023), a bench of Justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K V Vishwanathan dissolved the marriage of a couple solemnised in 2013.

The bench pointed out that it has also been held that in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, this court has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown, and this discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties, when this court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified.

The matter before the apex court arose out of a transfer petition filed by the wife seeking shifting of the proceedings pending under the Hindu Marriage Act before the court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Roorkee, Uttarakhand to the Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

The husband had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce alleging that the petitioner-wife had breached the trust for being in a relationship with another man.

Having secured a job as a teacher in July, 2022, the man alleged, that his wife had completely neglected him. Whereas the petitioner-wife contended that on account of the husband having neglected her and the daughter and having failed to take care of them, she was left with no other option but to return to her parental home and she had been residing there since 2019.

The matter was referred to mediation by the Supreme Court but it did not fructify into settlement. The parties also fairly admitted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

"In the factual scenario, we are of the considered view that the exercise of the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and also to do complete justice between the parties particularly in the background of this court having noted herein that marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent has completely failed and the parties had not cohabitated from 2019 till date and there being no possibility that the parties will cohabitate in future. Hence, continuation of the legal relationship would be unjustified and would not subserve the interest of the parties," the bench said.

The court felt that the continuation of the proceedings before the trial court could only be an ordeal that both the parties would have to undergo.

"We are of the considered view that marriage between the petitioner and respondent having irretrievably broken down, exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of Constitution of India is called for in the facts and circumstances obtained and also keeping in mind that petitioner and first respondent are quite young namely 32 years and 38 years respectively and have future ahead of them," the bench said.

The court also noted that a settlement agreement was arrived at as a sum of Rs 7,00,000 was deposited by the husband in the name of the minor daughter. 

It directed the man to pay a sum of Rs 13 lakh to the wife to meet the ends of justice. 

The court accordingly dissolved the marriage by granting a decree of divorce in exercise of the power vested under Article 142(1) of the Constitution.

Case Title: Sapna Negi Vs Chaman Singh And Another