In a recent judgment of Apex Court's Constitution Bench, Bench concluded that Supreme Court had the authority to dissolve a marriage by mutual consent without requiring a second motion. However, the Court stressed the importance of exercising this power with caution.
Supreme Court of India examined the extent of its authority to dissolve marriages based on an irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.
The Court held that the power to achieve complete justice under Article 142 is not restricted by the fault and blame doctrine that applies to divorce petitions under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Brief Facts of the Case:
In the case before the Constitution Bench, the issue arose from previous judgements that stated that the Supreme Court, under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, did not have the power to reduce or waive the six-month waiting period for moving the second motion under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. However, it was noticed that some Courts had been dispensing with or reducing this waiting period when it was clear that the spouses could not cohabit. Therefore, the Constitution Bench was tasked with clarifying the ruling and guiding the future.
Observations of the Court:
The Apex Court analyzed Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India and clarified that it allowed the Supreme Court to do “complete justice” in any “cause or matter”. Under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, this power was wide and elastic, and the Supreme Court could modify the law in exceptional cases. In M. Siddiq (Dead) through Legal Representatives (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case) v. Mahant Suresh Das and Others [(2020) 1 SCC 1], the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had noted that the power of equity under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India intersected between the general and specific laws. Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India was curative in nature. The Court would not ordinarily pass an order ignoring or disregarding a statutory provision governing the subject except to balance the equities between conflicting claims of the litigating parties.
While analyzing the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court reiterates that it allows for divorce by mutual consent and the cooling-off period of six months, which is meant to enable the couple to introspect and consider their decision to separate before filing for divorce. However, in cases of exceptional hardship where the marriage has already ended, the procedure should give way to the parties' larger public and personal interest in ending the litigation. The Court can waive the cooling-off period where the proceedings have remained pending for long in the Courts, and it is satisfied that the marriage has shattered beyond repair. In the case of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur [(2017) 8 SCC 746], the Court held that the cooling-off period is not mandatory but discretionary and can be waived where necessary.
The Supreme Court discussed the Court's authority to dissolve a marriage based on an irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court ruled that the power to achieve “complete justice” under Article 142 is not restricted by the doctrine of fault and blame applicable to divorce petitions under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. While citing Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar [(2010) 4 SCC 460], the Court clarified that individuals could not file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking direct relief for dissolution of marriage from the Supreme Court.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court provided an explanation of the extent and limitations of Article 142(1) of the Indian Constitution. During their review of the second issue, the Court concluded that the Apex Court had the authority to dissolve a marriage by mutual consent without requiring the second motion. However, the Court stressed the importance of exercising this power with caution. Additionally, the Court answered the third issue positively, stating that the discretionary power under Article 142(1) should be used to ensure complete justice for the parties involved, particularly when the marriage had entirely broken down, leaving no chance of reconciliation. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the divorce decree previously granted by the division bench.
Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v Varun Sreenivasan
Case No.: Transfer Petition (C) No. 1118 of 2014
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 420 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Krishan Kaul, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S Oka, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K Maheshwari
Advocates for the Petitioner: Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv. (AC), Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv., Mr. Rohin Bhatt, Adv., Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.(AC), Ms. Suveni Bhagat, Adv., Ms. Ankita Gupta, Adv., Mr. Shrirang Varma, Adv., Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. (AC), Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. (AC), Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR, Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv., Mr. Siddarth Agarwal, Adv., Mr. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Ms. Jyotika Kalra, AOR.
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Adv., Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv., Mr. Ankur Kulkarni Adv., Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv., Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR., Mr. Jay Sayla., Sr. Adv., Mr. Anurag., AOR., Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal, AOR., Mr. Ekansh Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Vikrant Pacchandra, AOR.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
