Summary
Answering a Constitution Bench reference, the Court held that Article 142 permits it to dissolve a marriage on a genuine settlement without the second-motion procedure, and to grant divorce for firmly established irretrievable breakdown despite one spouse’s opposition. Both powers are discretionary and require complete justice to both parties. Direct writ petitions seeking such divorce cannot bypass the prescribed judicial process.
Issues
- What limits govern the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 in matrimonial disputes.
- Whether settlement permits dispensing with the second motion and disposing of connected proceedings.
- Whether irretrievable breakdown permits dissolution despite opposition by a spouse.
Provisions considered
- Article 142(1), Constitution of IndiaRecognised discretionary power to achieve complete justice in a pending cause or matter, constrained by fundamental general and specific public policy. (¶¶ 8-13, 42)
- Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Held that the Supreme Court can dissolve marriage on genuine settlement without insisting on the procedural second motion, with appropriate safeguards. (¶¶ 15-22, 42)
- Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 23(1)(a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Examined the fault framework without treating it as a bar to exceptional relief under Article 142 for irretrievable breakdown. (¶¶ 24-30, 40)
- Articles 32 and 226, Constitution of IndiaRejected use of original writ proceedings to circumvent the ordinary matrimonial judicial process and directly obtain divorce for irretrievable breakdown. (¶ 41)
Held
- Article 142 permits departure from procedural and substantive law to do complete justice in a pending cause or matter, subject to restraint and fundamental general and specific public policy. Statutory provisions must be considered; the power is not an unrestricted authority to disregard substantive rights or non-derogable principles at the statute’s core. (¶¶ 8-13, 42(i))
- On a genuine voluntary settlement addressing maintenance, alimony, custody and other outstanding issues, the Supreme Court may grant divorce by mutual consent without requiring the parties to pursue a second motion before another court. The factors in Amardeep Singh and Amit Kumar guide the careful exercise of discretion. (¶¶ 17-22, 42(ii))
- Connected proceedings, including criminal proceedings and FIRs, may also be quashed or disposed of under Article 142 when the applicable safeguards governing such relief are satisfied. Settlement does not dispense with scrutiny for coercion, fraud or undue influence. (¶¶ 22, 42(ii))
- Irretrievable breakdown can justify dissolution under Article 142 even against a spouse’s opposition, but divorce on this basis is not a right. The Court must firmly establish that the marriage is unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation, and balance the position of the opposing spouse. Earlier decisions restricting relief were read down accordingly. (¶¶ 30-40, 42(iii))
- Relevant considerations include cohabitation and separation, litigation and failed reconciliation, social and economic circumstances, adequate financial provision and children’s welfare. Separation above six years is relevant, not an automatic entitlement or an exhaustive statutory test; the factors are illustrative and situation-specific. (¶ 33)
- A spouse cannot directly invoke Article 32, or Article 226 before a High Court, to bypass the prescribed process and seek divorce for irretrievable breakdown. The exceptional Article 142 jurisdiction considered here belongs to the Supreme Court in a pending cause or matter. (¶¶ 41, 42)
Result
Reference answered. Petitions in which divorce had already been granted on 6 May 2015 were disposed of; Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos.96 and 339 of 2014 were directed to be listed before the regular bench for appropriate orders.