SHILPA SAILESH v. VARUN SREENIVASAN

Case details

Citations: 2023 INSC 468; [2023] 5 S.C.R. 165; (2023) 6 SCC 335[1]
Court: Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul J., Sanjiv Khanna J., Abhay S. Oka J., Vikram Nath J., and J.K. Maheshwari J.
Date of Judgment: May 1, 2023[2]
Relevant Provisions / Statutes: Article 142(1) and Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India; Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.[3]

I. Factual Background

The core legal controversy arose during proceedings in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 899 of 2007, where the Supreme Court doubted the correctness of previous rulings in Anjana Kishore v. Puneet Kishore[4] and Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel.[5] Those decisions had held that the Court lacked the power to waive or reduce the statutory six-month “cooling-off” period required for the second motion under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMA) by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India.[6]

Subsequently, the question concerning the scope and extent of Article 142 was referred to a Division Bench in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1118 of 2014, Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan.[7] The Attorney General for India submitted additional questions of law, including whether the statutory waiting period under Section 13-B of the HMA could be dispensed with under Article 142. The matter was initially referred to a three-judge Bench and subsequently sent to a five-judge Constitution Bench pursuant to Article 145(3) of the Constitution to definitively resolve the material issues.[8]

II. Issues

1. What is the scope, ambit, and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India?
2. Whether the Supreme Court can, under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the HMA 1955 upon settlement between the parties, dispense with the six-month waiting period for the second motion, and quash related proceedings.
3. Whether the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) can grant a decree of divorce on the ground of complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage even when one of the spouses opposes the prayer.[9]

III. Judgment

A five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Supreme Court can directly grant a decree of divorce on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” by exercising its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142(1) to do “complete justice.”[10]

The decision harmonized statutory restrictions under the HMA 1955 with equity powers under the Constitution, affirming that parties need not be relegated to lower trial courts when a marriage has become completely non-functional for all practical purposes.[11]

IV. Ratio Decidendi

1. Scope of Article 142(1): The Supreme Court possesses plenary power under Article 142(1) to issue orders necessary for doing “complete justice” in any cause or matter. This authority permits the Court to depart from strict procedural provisions and legislative requirements to balance equities, provided such departures comply with fundamental principles of public policy.[12]

2. Decree of Divorce and Quashing of Proceedings: The Court possesses the authority under Article 142(1) to grant a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the HMA 1955 and waive the mandatory six-month cooling-off period.[13] Such waivers are granted after evaluating factors such as the duration of cohabitation, length of separation, outcome of mediation attempts, and hardship caused by pendency. Additionally, the Court may exercise this power to quash connected civil and criminal proceedings between the parties.[14]

3. Divorce on Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: The Court can grant a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142(1) even if one spouse opposes the grant of divorce.[15] However, this power must be exercised cautiously in exceptional cases where the marriage is beyond repair, emotionally dead, and incapable of salvation.[16]

V. Obiter Dicta

The Court observed that obtaining a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be claimed as a matter of right under Article 142(1), as the power remains purely discretionary.[17] The Court highlighted illustrative factors to assist judicial discretion, including:

1. The length of cohabitation during the marriage.
2. The period of continuous separation, noting that a separation extending beyond six years generally indicates an irreparable breakdown.
3. The nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and the outcome of mediation efforts.[18]

The Court further clarified that litigants cannot directly file petitions before the Supreme Court under Article 32 or High Courts under Article 226 seeking divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.[19] Article 142(1) is a discretionary remedy exercised in pending matters to prevent prolonged litigation when a marriage is demonstrably beyond repair.[20] Additionally, while dissolving a broken marriage, the Court emphasized the duty to secure financial provisions, permanent alimony for the wife, and the welfare of minor children.[21]

VI. Final Decision

The Supreme Court disposed of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1118 of 2014 and quashed Transfer Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 382 and 468 of 2014, thereby affirming the dissolution of the marriage between the parties.[22]

References

[1] Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 INSC 468; [2023] 5 S.C.R. 165; (2023) 6 SCC 335.
[2] Shilpa Sailesh, (2023) 6 SCC 335, ¶ 1.
[3] INDIA CONST. arts. 142(1), 145(3); Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955, § 13-B, INDIA CODE (1955).
[4] Anjana Kishore v. Puneet Kishore, (2002) 10 SCC 194.
[5] Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, (2010) 4 SCC 393.
[6] Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955, § 13-B(2), INDIA CODE (1955).
[7] Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1118 of 2014.
[8] INDIA CONST. art. 145, cl. 3.
[9] Shilpa Sailesh, (2023) 6 SCC 335, ¶ 12.
[10] INDIA CONST. art. 142, cl. 1.
[11] Shilpa Sailesh, (2023) 6 SCC 335, ¶ 25.
[12] Id. at ¶ 32.
[13] Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955, § 13-B, INDIA CODE (1955).
[14] Shilpa Sailesh, (2023) 6 SCC 335, ¶ 40.
[15] Id. at ¶ 48.
[16] Id. at ¶ 52.
[17] INDIA CONST. art. 142, cl. 1.
[18] Shilpa Sailesh, (2023) 6 SCC 335, ¶ 58.
[19] INDIA CONST. arts. 32, 226.
[20] Shilpa Sailesh, (2023) 6 SCC 335, ¶ 62.
[21] Id. at ¶ 65.
[22] Id. at ¶ 70.