Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO.338 OF 2025
RAJESH BINDAL and MANMOHAN, JJ
Overview
The Supreme Court of India, while using the extraordinary powers granted under Article 142 of the Constitution, decided a matrimonial suit on the ground of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, in the face of strong opposition from the husband. Even as the judgment reads the views of a completely failed marital relationship, the judgment also goes on to make important recommendations regarding the disposal of pending cases, as well as the perjury proceedings, which were initiated, highlighting the sanctity of the legal process.
Facts of the Case
The marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on the 28th day of January 2012. Cohabitation existed for only 65 days, after which the wife moved out on the 2nd day of April 2012 on grounds of cruelty. From then on, the parties are living separately for more than 13 years.
40 civil and criminal matters were filed by both parties against each other in various forums such as the Family Courts, District Courts, Supreme Court, and at the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts. The litigious matters were in various laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, CrPC/BNSS, Domestic Violence Act, IPC, and various perjury cases under Section 340 CrPC and Section 379 BNSS. Some cases were disposed of or dismissed, and some are pending.
The present proceedings arose from a transfer petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of a perjury application from Delhi to Lucknow. During pendency, the wife filed an interlocutory application under Article 142, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. Mediation attempts ordered by the Supreme Court failed to commence meaningfully.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage under Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even when one spouse opposes divorce.
- Whether prolonged separation, failed mediation, and multiplicity of litigation justify invoking Article 142.
- Whether all pending matrimonial proceedings between the parties should be terminated to achieve complete justice.
- Whether proceedings alleging perjury should survive despite dissolution of marriage.
Decision and Reasoning
The Court was greatly reliant on the Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, where it was held that “the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, although not a statutory ground for divorce under the HMA, 1955, yet could constitute a ground for divorce under Article 142 to afford complete justice.”
The Court noted:
- They have lived apart from each other for more than a decade.
- There was no possibility of reconciliation.
- Mediation attempts were unsuccessful.
- Marriage had completely lost any semblance of sanctity.
- The continued link just lengthens the agonies and clogs the judicial machinery.
Accordingly, the Court dissolved the marriage and did not render any award for relief to the wife as no such relief had been claimed by the wife.
The Court directed that all pending cases relating to the marriage be disposed of as the purity of judicial proceedings should be preserved. Only cases relating to perjury will be continued.
