SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 1135

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Hironmoy Sen & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State Of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1243 of 2021 (@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4695 of 2019)
Decided on : 20-10-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv., Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv., Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv., Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv., Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv., Mr. Akash Singh, Adv., Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Mr. Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Adv.,
Mr. Rohit Dutta, Adv., Mr. Sayak Chakraborti, Adv., Mr. Wrickbrata Roy, Adv., Ms. Ananya Banerjee, Adv., Ms. Tina Garg, AOR

The judgment emphasizes the significance of mutual consent in divorce proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the court's authority to dissolve a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

Divorce - Mutual Consent - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13B - Quashing of Proceedings - Settlement Terms

Fact of the Case:

The appeal is directed against the dismissal of the appellants' plea to quash proceedings against them in connection with FIR No. 649 of 2012. The appellants, husband and mother-in-law of the respondent, had a strained marriage, leading to the filing of a complaint by the respondent. After mediation and settlement discussions, the parties agreed to file for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and reached a comprehensive settlement regarding alimony, property transfer, and withdrawal of cases.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the parties had reached a full and final settlement through mutual consent terms and an additional affidavit, addressing the daughter's welfare and resolving all disputes. The court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage, subject to the condition of payment of the balance alimony/maintenance by the appellant.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the quashing of proceedings, settlement of alimony and property transfer, and the welfare of the daughter.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the parties' mutual consent terms, the appellant's additional affidavit addressing the daughter's welfare, and the invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage.

Final Decision: The marriage between the parties was dissolved by mutual consent, subject to the condition of payment of the balance alimony/maintenance by the appellant. All pending criminal or civil cases, including the FIR, were quashed.

ORDER :

The Court is convened through video conference.

Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the Order of the Learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court dated 30.01.2019, whereby CRR No. 1930 of 2017 filed by the appellants for quashing proceedings against them in connection with FIR No. 649 of 2012 was dismissed.

3. Appellant Nos. 1 & 2 are the husband and mother-in-law respectively of Respondent No. 2. Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 solemnized their marriage on 1st December, 1995, and they resided in their matrimonial home along with Appellant No. 2. The couple, however, could not pull on together for various reasons, which are not necessary to be noticed in view of subsequent developments stated hereinafter. Suffice to say that Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 were blessed with a girl child Shivangi, born on 27th August, 1999.

The relations between the married couple soured even further.

4. Resultantly, Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 started residing separately from each other on a permanent basis from May 2010 onwards.

5. The alleged acts of violence attributed to Appellant No. 1 eventually led Respondent No. 2 to file a complaint, on the basis of which the subject FIR was registered. Appellants attempted to quash the proceedings in connection with the FIR but their applications were rejected in succession by the Judicial Magistrate, and then by the Learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. Hence, the Appellants are before this Court.

6. When the case first came up for hearing on 2nd July, 2019, the matter was referred to mediation at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. After an interlude of 2 years, when the matter came up again on 8th July, 2021, their learned counsel stated that the parties were amenable to a settlement and 6 weeks’ time was granted to file a Compromise memo.

7. An Affidavit for Mutual Consent Terms on behalf of Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 dated 5th August, 2021, was duly filed on 11th August, 2021. Affidavit for Mutual Consent Terms (“Mutual Consent Terms”) on behalf of Appellant No. 1 and his wife Respondent No. 2, reads as follows:

    “a) The Petitioner No. 1 i.e. Mr. Hironmoy Sen and the Original complainant/Respondent No. 2, Sarbani Sen i.e. the wife of the Petitioner No. I herein, have agreed to file the present consent terms as the issues which arose during the course of their marriage are now settled by and between them amicably. The Petitioner No. I and the Respondent No. 2 have specifically agreed to file the present Consent Terms in this Hon'ble Court.

    b) The Petitioner No. l and the Respondent No. 2 have filed an application, being Matrimonial Suit no. 1489 of 2021 for dissolution or their marriage by divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Court of the Learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore.

    c) After the mutual settlement discussion by and between the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner No. 1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 90,00,000/(Rupees Ninety Lakhs only) as full and final settlement towards alimony/maintenance/ monetary allowance /Settlement amount, which will be remitted to the Respondent No.2.

    d) The Petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay and has accordingly paid an additional sum of Rs. 2,01,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs One Thousand) only to the Respondent No. 2 which is equivalent to the claim made by the Respondent No. 2 as arrear alimony pendente lite regarding the dispute of the school admission fees of the daughter, while the minor was in custody of the Wife/Original Complainant/Respondent No.2. The Respondent No. 2 shall not make any further claim in that regard since the same is being paid to her.

    e) The Petitioner No. I has also agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,98,000/(Rupees One Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand) only to the Respondent No.2 as interest on Rs.90,00,000/(Rupees Ninety Lakhs) only for an approximate estimated period or six months at the prevalent interest rate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top