Skip to main content

Supreme Court ended 65 days of marriage which resulted into 40 cases and 13 years of litigation

INTRODUCTION 

In a landmark judgment that addresses the growing trend of "matrimonial warfare," the Supreme Court of India recently brought an end to a 13-year legal battle between a couple who had lived together for only 65 days.

Facts and Background 

The marriage between the parties solemnized in January 2012. The parties only lived together for a short period of 65 days. After being separated, there were about 40 cases filed across various forums in Delhi and UP. The litigation included a barrage of civil and criminal cases, ranging from transfer petitions and maintenance claims to allegations of cruelty and perjury. Despite multiple attempts at mediation, the bitterness between the parties only intensified over the decade, leading the Court to observe that "good sense" had long been abandoned.



Observations 
Under Article 142, the Supreme Court has the "plenary power" to pass any order necessary to ensure "complete justice." In this case, the Court used this power to:

  1. Grant an Immediate Divorce: Bypassing the usual requirement for mutual consent or the lengthy "fault-based" trial process.

  2. Quash Pending Cases: Dissolving all matrimonial-related litigation between the parties to ensure they could not continue to harass one another through the courts.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage 

The Court recognized that when a couple has been separated for over a decade and has engaged in such intense litigation, the marriage is "dead for all intents and purposes." The Bench noted that forcing such a relationship to continue on paper serves no social or legal purpose and only chokes an already overburdened system. 

The judgment went beyond the specifics of the couple and addressed the broader issue of frivolous litigation. It was observed that the Court is not a battle ground for settling personal scores. Further, it was stated that every frivolous case delays justice for thousand genuine cases. The court even urged to take the shelter of mediation instead of going into long litigation. 

Unlike typical divorce settlements, the Court took a punitive stance to deter future abuse:

  • Imposition of Costs: Both parties were ordered to pay ₹10,000 each to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association as a penalty for wasting judicial time.

  • The Perjury Exception: Notably, the Court did not quash the perjury proceedings against the wife. It held that while the marriage should end, "pollution of the stream of justice" (through false affidavits or fabricated evidence) must be dealt with on its merits to maintain the integrity of the law.

Conclusion 

This judgment sets a powerful precedent: the Supreme Court will no longer act as a silent spectator while "warring couples" weaponize the law. It reinforces that while the right to seek justice is fundamental, the right to harass through litigation is non-existent.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal matters between the natural guardians cannot constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal to issue passport says Allahabad High Court

Facts and Background The case involved a minor child aged about 2 years at the time of application whose mother applied for her passport on January 17, 2025. Despite completing all required formalities, the passport authorities kept the application pending indefinitely. The reason cited was the ongoing matrimonial dispute and criminal cases between the child's parents (the natural guardians). The authorities essentially treated these parental conflicts as a ground to withhold progress on the minor's passport application. The mother approached the Allahabad High Court via a writ petition, seeking directions for expeditious processing and issuance. Observations of the Court   Section 6 is Exhaustive and Mandatory   Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, provides the complete and exclusive list of grounds on which a passport authority may refuse to issue a passport or travel document.      - These grounds include matters like:       ...
Post a Comment
Read more

MARRIAGE REGISTRATION PROCESS IN DELHI

 Hello friends today we shall talk about the procedure for registration of marriage in Delhi.   ELIGIBILITY The marriage must have been solemnized either under the Hindu Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act, The Groom must have attained the minimum age of 21 years. The bride must be of the age of 18 years at least.   DOCUMENTS REQUIRED Photo ID proofs of both the parties like Aadhar card / PAN card / Voter card Date of birth proofs of both parties like 10 th certificate, etc. Permanent address proof must be there . Marriage photographs and Invitation Card. Passport Size Photographs of both parties. 2 witness in case marriage registered under Hindu Marriage Act or 3 witnesses in case it is registered under the Special Marriage Act along with their respective proofs like PAN CARD/ AADHAR CARD etc. An affidavit from both parties certifying the date of their marriage and more specifically stating that the marriage has not been performed between pers...
1 comment
Read more

KERALA HIGH COURT BARS ENTRY OF 10 YEAR GIRL FROM ENTERING SABARIMALA TEMPLE

RECENTLY KERALA HIGH COURT DISMISSED WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE  226 OF CONSTITUTION FILED BY FATHER ON BEHALF OF HIS 10- YEAR OLD GIRL FOR SEEKING AN ORDER TO ENTER SABARIMALA TEMPLE. THE SAME IS DISMISSED IN LIGHT OF REVIEW PENDING ON THE SAID ISSUE BEFORE THE LARGER BENCH OF THE APEX COURT. BRIEF FACTS 10 year old girl filed a writ petition before the Kerala HIgh Court seeking relief of mandamus seeking directions to Travancore Devaswom Board to allow her to offer pilgrimage to Sabarimala Temple without taking into account the restrictions of age since she has not attained puberty or in the alternative to allow the request of the minor on sympathetic grounds. It is contended by the Petitioner that they are planning to visit the temple since long and it has been delayed due to onset of Covid earlier. Now, the family is under distress and also the father of Petitioner is not in good health. Hence, they have applied the same online but since in the meanwhile the age of Petit...
Post a Comment
Read more