Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1821
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Benazeer Heena – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 348 of 2022
Decided On : 16-08-2022
Ms. Pinky Anand Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate, Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Asees Jasmine Kaur, Advocate, Ms. Asha Upadhyay, Advocate, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Shahrukh Alam, Advocate, Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, Advocate, Mr. M. Shaz Khan, Advocate, Ms. Sitwat Nabi, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The court has the discretion to allow or reject the application for permission to appear and argue in person, and also has the authority to consider the possibility of settlement through divorce by mutual consent or Mubarat.
Headnote:
Permission to Appear and Argue in Person - Family Law - N/A - The court allowed the application for permission to appear and argue in person and rejected the applications for impleadment. The court also discussed the possibility of settlement through divorce by mutual consent or Mubarat.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to appear and argue in person, while also considering the possibility of settlement through divorce by mutual consent or Mubarat.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application for permission to appear and argue in person, rejected the applications for impleadment, and discussed the possibility of settlement through divorce by mutual consent or Mubarat.
Issues: Permission to appear and argue in person, impleadment, settlement through divorce by mutual consent or Mubarat.
Ratio Decidendi: The court has the discretion to allow or reject the application for permission to appear and argue in person. The court also has the authority to consider the possibility of settlement through divorce by mutual consent or Mubarat.
Final Decision: The application for permission to appear and argue in person was allowed, while the applications for impleadment were rejected. The court discussed the possibility of settlement through divorce by mutual consent or Mubarat.
ORDER
1. Application for permission to appear and argue in person is allowed.
2. Applications for impleadment are rejected.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to obtain instructions in view of the proceedings in WP [C] No.10280/2022 which are stated to have been filed by the petitioner in the Delhi High Court and the nature of proceedings.
4. We have also put to learned senior counsel whether in view of the allegation of respondent of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, would the petitioner be willing for a settlement by process of divorce by mutual consent on amounts being paid over and above the Meher fixed. In fact, we have brought to their notice that dissolution of marriage is also possible without the intervention of the Court through Mubarat.
5. Learned counsel seeks some time to obtain instructions.
6. ist on 29.08.2022.
