Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Trisha Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Anurag Kumar – Respondent
Transfer Petition (Civil) No(s). 1008 of 2023
Decided On : 15-05-2024
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13-B – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Divorce by mutual consent – Transfer petition preferred by petitioner-wife dismissed for want of prosecution – Both estranged parties have arrived at amicable settlement for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent – There was clear undertaking by parties before Mediator that they shall part ways peacefully – Respondent-husband has agreed to pay full and final alimony of Rs.1 Crore 15 lakhs – Respondent-husband had voluntarily paid sum of Rs. 20 lakhs for support of his child and also paid sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to petitioner-wife in terms of settlement – Remaining amount of permanent alimony has been agreed to be paid as per schedule indicated in settlement deed – Petitioner-wife having taken advantage of settlement executed before Mediator has managed to get matrimonial case instituted by respondent-husband withdrawn – She has also accepted sum of Rs.50 lakhs from respondent-husband towards part payment of permanent alimony and thereafter, she is trying to resile from settlement without any justification – Conduct of petitioner-wife is clearly recalcitrant inasmuch as she has disregarded terms and conditions agreed before Mediator in settlement proceedings which were undertaken pursuant to directions of this Court – Because of her conduct, respondent-husband has been put to grave disadvantage – Matrimonial relations between spouses have broken down irrevocably and there is no possibility of reconciliation and revival of spousal relationship – Court inclined to exercise powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India so as to grant decree of divorce – Marriage between petitioner and respondent dissolved. (Paras 3, 4, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Transfer petition came to be preferred by petitioner-wife seeking transfer of petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed for want of prosecution. Matter was forwarded to Supreme Court Mediation Centre for exploring possibility of an amicable settlement between parties.
Findings of Court:
Respondent in terms of settlement shall make remaining payment to petitioner.
Result : Petition allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a petition for transfer of a matrimonial case filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution and later restored for amicable settlement discussions (!) (!) .
The parties, petitioner-wife and respondent-husband, reached an amicable settlement before a mediator, agreeing to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and outlining specific terms for the settlement, including payment of alimony and division of belongings (!) (!) .
The respondent-husband committed to paying a total permanent alimony of Rs. 1.15 crore, having already paid Rs. 50 lakh, with the remaining payments scheduled as per the settlement agreement (!) (!) (!) .
The respondent-husband paid Rs. 20 lakh for the support of his child and Rs. 50 lakh to the petitioner-wife, fulfilling part of the settlement terms (!) (!) .
The petitioner-wife initially accepted the settlement and the partial payments but later attempted to resile from the agreement without justification, disregarding the terms agreed upon before the mediator and the Court (!) (!) .
The Court observed that the conduct of the petitioner-wife was recalcitrant and had caused significant disadvantage to the respondent-husband, who had already withdrawn the matrimonial case and paid substantial alimony based on the settlement (!) .
The respondent-husband expressed his intention to abide by the remaining terms of the settlement and make the scheduled payments if the marriage is dissolved (!) .
The Court referenced prior similar cases and emphasized that when parties have entered into a settlement, especially one that has been executed voluntarily and with full knowledge, attempts to resile from such agreements are viewed unfavorably, especially if the conduct amounts to abuse of process (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court concluded that the matrimonial relations had broken down irretrievably, with no possibility of reconciliation, and exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage (!) .
The Court ordered that the remaining payments under the settlement be made by the respondent-husband, the marriage be dissolved, and the decree be prepared accordingly, with no order as to costs (!) (!) (!) (!) .
All pending applications were disposed of, and the case was resolved in accordance with these findings (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
1. The instant transfer petition came to be preferred by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 being Matrimonial Case No. 2172/2022 titled as ‘Anurag Kumar S/o Ravindra Nath Sharma Vs. Trisha Singh’, pending before the Court of 7-Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, U.P. to the Family Court at Pune, Maharashtra.
2. The transfer petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26th July, 2023. Subsequently, vide order dated 21st August, 2023, the transfer petition was restored to its original number and on the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was forwarded to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties. Pursuant to the efforts made by the Mediator, the parties had arrived at a settlement which was signed by the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband before Shrabani Chakrabarty, Advocate/Mediator, Supreme Court Mediation Centre on 26th February, 2024. The relevant terms and conditions of the settlement agreement which in entirety shall form a part of this order are reproduced below: -
“5. Both the parties hereto have arrived at an amicable settlement on the following terms and conditions for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent: -
A. That the respondent husband continued to pay certain expenses voluntary to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakh only) from March 2020 upto October 2023 for his child to the bank account of the petitioner-wife including the period the parties were not together. Mediation took place at great length between the parties and parties want to part away taking divorce. The respondent- husband has agreed to pay full and final alimony of Rs.1 Crore 15 lakh (one crore and Fifteen lakhs only) to the petitioner-wife. The respondent husband has paid an amount of Rs.50 lakh to the petitioner wife on 22.02.2024. The remaining alimony will be paid will be as under:
(i) Rs.50 Lakh (rupees fifty lakh) only shall be paid to the petitioner-wife on or before 31.08.2024;
(ii) The remaining alimony of Rs. 15 lakh (rupees fifteen lakh) only will be paid on or before 31.12.2024.
(iii) The gold and jewelries belonging to the petitioner-wife kept in a locker at Bank of India of Varanasi shall be taken by the petitioner within 14th to 20th March 2024. Petitioner will also collect silver items given on marriage from the respondent- husband.”
3. It is thus manifest that there was a clear undertaking by the parties before the Mediator that they shall part ways peacefully.
4. It is also clear that the respondent-husband had voluntarily paid a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs for the support of his child during the period from March, 2020 to October, 2023. The respondent-husband also paid a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the petitioner-wife in the terms of the settlement. The remaining amount of permanent alimony has been agreed to be paid as per the schedule indicated in the settlement deed. Out of this agreed amount, the respondent-husband has paid a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-(fifty lacs) only to the petitioner-wife.
5. However, today when the matter was taken up, this Court was apprised that the petitioner-wife seems to have resiled from the settlement agreement.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has affirmed that his client has stopped instructing him in the matter. Acting on the terms of the settlement, the respondent-husband has already withdrawn the matrimonial case on 23rd April, 2024 which fact is recorded in the order sheet of the Family Court placed on record with I.A. No. 112620 of 2024 and thus he is abiding by the terms of settlement in letter and spirit.
7. It seems, the petitioner-wife having taken advantage of the settlement executed before the Mediator has managed to get the matrimonial case instituted by the respondent-husband withdrawn. She has also accepted a sum of Rs.50 lakhs from the respondent-husband towards part payment of the perm
The court can dissolve a marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 when parties have amicably settled their disputes, ensuring compliance with agreed terms.
The court can exercise its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent and accept settlement agreements between parties, leading to th....
The court upheld the mutual consent divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, recognizing the validity of the settlement agreement between the parties.
The court granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution, recognizing the validity of the parties' Settlement Agreement.
The court can exercise its inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a decree for divorce by mutual consent and give effect to the terms of a settlement reached between t....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
