Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Vishal Shah – Appellant
Versus
Monalisha Gupta & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 870 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 4297 of 2023)
Decided On : 20-02-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 19th February 2018, but they cohabited only for 80 days in the USA before separating (!) (!) .
The parties have been living separately since May 2018, with the respondent residing in India and the appellant primarily in the USA (!) (!) .
Multiple legal cases have been filed by both parties against each other across various jurisdictions, indicating ongoing disputes and a strained relationship (!) (!) (!) .
The appellant alleges continuous domestic abuse by the respondent, which led to police reports and criminal proceedings in the USA, and claims the respondent was vindictive and harbored malicious intent (!) (!) .
The appellant’s passport was impounded in 2018 due to the cases filed against him, and this impoundment was later found to be illegal because it was done without proper opportunity for the appellant to be heard (!) (!) (!) .
The appellant was unable to appear before the court in India due to the passport impoundment, which was beyond his control, rendering the initiation of extradition proceedings unlawful (!) (!) .
The proceedings against the appellant, including the extradition order, are liable to be quashed because they were based on a procedure that violated principles of natural justice (!) (!) .
The marriage is deemed to have irretrievably broken down, with no prospects of reconciliation, given the short duration of cohabitation, prolonged separation, and ongoing litigations (!) (!) .
The court exercised its discretion under constitutional provisions to dissolve the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, considering the long-standing separation, absence of love or affection, and the lack of any child from the marriage (!) (!) .
The respondent is employed and earning Rs. 50,000 per month, while the appellant claims to have earned Rs. 8 lakh per month in 2018 but is currently unemployed (!) .
A lump sum alimony of Rs. 25 lakh has been awarded to the respondent, considering her standard of living during the marriage, the period of separation, and the financial circumstances of both parties (!) .
The court directed the appellant to pay the alimony amount within two months, and upon failure, the amount would be returned to the appellant (!) (!) .
The court ordered the release of the appellant’s passport within a week, as the earlier impoundment was found to be illegal and in violation of natural justice principles (!) (!) .
All pending criminal, civil, and domestic cases between the parties and their family members are to be closed following the dissolution of the marriage (!) .
The appeal and pending applications are disposed of, with the orders to be implemented accordingly (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th January, 2023, passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Revision being CRR No. 135 of 2023, whereby the High Court dismissed the said Criminal Revision filed by the authorized representative of the appellant1[The appellant is the husband of the respondent. For short, ‘appellant’], i.e., his sister, and affirmed the order dated 15th September, 2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Howrah2[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘trial Court’], in Miscellaneous Case No. 440 of 2022 arising out of Criminal Case No. 446C of 2020. Learned trial Court vide order dated 15th September, 2022, had directed the competent authorities to start the extradition process against the appellant.
3. The facts in a nutshell are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 19th February, 2018, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. In March, 2018, the couple moved to the United States of America (‘USA’), where the appellant has been working as a Software Engineer since 2014.
4. The appellant alleges that, while residing in the USA, he was subjected to continuous domestic abuse at the hands of the respondent-wife3[For short, ‘respondent’] and endured the same. On 23rd March, 2018, he reported an incident of abuse to the local police, claiming protection and displaying visible injuries on his face. Although the appellant clarified that he did not wish to press charges, he requested the police to issue a warning to his wife. Despite this intervention, the abuse persisted. On 2nd April 2018, the respondent allegedly became enraged and scratched the appellant's face, causing significant injuries. Unable to face the situation, the appellant called the police again, leading to the respondent being charged with second-degree assault.
5. On account of the grave differences, the relationship between the appellant and the respondent became strained, leading to estrangement after only 80 days of matrimony. Accordingly, the couple returned to India. When it was time to return to the USA, the respondent refused to accompany the appellant, who left alone for the USA on 19th May, 2018. The couple has not begotten a child from the wedlock. Shortly, after the appellant’s return to the USA, the respondent initiated multiple legal proceedings against the appellant and his family members in various courts/fora across the country. The details of these cases, along with the respective dates of filing, are as follows:
a. Criminal case No. 852 of 2018 under Sectionsf 498A, 307, 506, 406, 323, 324 IPC4[The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’)] and Sections 3 & 4 DP Act5[The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short ‘DP Act’)] before Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, Bihar against the appellant, Gayatri Shah(mother-in-law of the respondent), Bhavna Chatterjee(sister-in-law of the respondent) & Sourav Chatterjee(husband of the sister-in-law of the respondent).
[Date of filing: 14th June, 2018]
b. Complaint Case No. 1009 of 2018 under Section 12 of the DV Act6[The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘DV Act’)] before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, West Muzaffarpur, Bihar, against the appellant, Gayatri Shah, Bhavna Chatterjee & Sourav Chatterjee.
[Date of filing: 5th July, 2018]
c. Matrimonial Suit No. 280 of 2018 under Section 9 HMA7[The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘HMA’)], before the Family Court, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights against the appellant.
[Date of filing: 5th July, 2018]
d. Maintenance Case No. 229 of 2018 under Section 125 CrPC8[The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC’.)] before the Family Court, Muzaffarpur, Bihar for Maintenance against the appellant.
[Date of filing: 5th July, 2018]
e. Complaint case No. 444 of 2020 under Sections 405, 406, 407, 420, 379, 499, 500, 324 and 506 IPC before Ad
The court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, emphasizing the absence of cohabitation and ongoing legal disputes.
(1) Divorce – Article 142(1) of Constitution of India, Supreme Court can dissolve marriage on the ground of Irretrievable breakdown of marriage.(2) Hindu marriage is a sacrament and is considered to ....
Divorce – Where marriage has ceased to exist both in substance and in reality, divorce is appropriate remedy.
Prolonged separation and proven cruelty can justify the dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, despite the absence of restitution of conjugal rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for granting divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
(1) Divorce – It would not be desirable to accept formula of “irretrievable break down of marriage” as a strait-jacket formula for grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 of Constitution.(2) Cru....
The Court found the marriage irretrievably broken, dissolving it and quashing all related proceedings while ordering substantial maintenance support for the wife and children.
(1) Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – It is in interest of society that marriages, as far as possible, should be maintained – If marriage has been wrecked beyond scope of salvage, it is....
A decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act requires substantial evidence of cruelty or desertion, which must not rely solely on allegations, while recognizing irretrievable breakdown as a basis....
Mental cruelty can lead to irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, and long periods of separation can amount to cruelty under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
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
