Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Rekha Minocha – Appellant
Versus
Amit Shah Minocha & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1595 of 2025
Decided on : 29-10-2025
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 12, 21 and 22 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Matrimonial dispute – Relationship between parties has irretrievably broken down – Parties have been living separately since more than fifteen years now – Attempt at reconciliation through Supreme Court Mediation Centre did not yield any positive result – Years of acrimony and bitterness have defined their relationship, and despite appellant-wife contesting grant of divorce, no marital bond survives between them – There is no purpose in perpetuating a legal relationship that has ceased to have any meaning – This a fit case to grant decree of divorce using powers under Article 142 of Constitution – Respondent-husband is willing to pay amount of Rupees One Crore as permanent alimony and as settlement of all pending dues – Amount of Rupees One Crore is just, fair and reasonable amount as permanent alimony and towards all pending dues – This amount shall be treated as a full and final settlement of all claims between parties including those of minor child – In exercise of Court’s powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India, marriage between parties dissolved, subject to condition that respondent-husband shall pay a sum of Rupees One Crore to appellant-wife as permanent alimony and as a full and final settlement of all claims. (Paras 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
This is a matrimonial dispute, and wife is before Court. Present appeal arises from judgment and order dated 3rd July 2023 passed by High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.950/2021.
Findings of Court:
Upon receipt of sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- neither party shall raise any further claim against the other. However, this shall not preclude the respondent father from contributing for the child’s education. All pending proceedings, civil or criminal, arising out of this marriage, shall by virtue of this order, stand quashed and closed.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 3rd July 2023 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.950/2021.
3. This is a matrimonial dispute, and the wife is before us. The relevant facts, giving rise to the present case, are as follows:
3.1. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 5th October 2009.
3.2. The appellant-wife has alleged mental and physical harassment by her in-laws, which led her to leave the matrimonial home on 15th April 2010.
3.3. While living at her parental home, the appellant-wife gave birth to their son on 28th December 2010.
3.4. Thereafter, the appellant-wife on 9th July 2013, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731[CrPC.] seeking maintenance for herself and their minor child.
3.5. On 16th January 2019, the appellant-wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 20052[DV Act.]. The Trial Court, vide order dated 16th January 2019, directed the respondent- husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month for rent, water and electricity expenses and Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance for the appellant and Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance for their minor child plus a further Rs.5,000/- for his education. The appellant-wife was given custody of their minor child under Section 21 of the DV Act and the respondent-husband was also directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for mental, emotional and physical suffering caused to the appellant under Section 22 of the DV Act.
3.6. The appellant-wife filed Criminal Appeal No.07/2019 seeking the right of residence in their shared household. The respondent-husband filed Criminal Appeal No.03.2019 as well. The Appellate Court, vide order dated 29th July 2021, dismissed their appeals and upheld the order of the Trial Court.
3.7. The Family Court in the Section 125 CrPC proceedings, vide order dated 15th October 2022, directed the respondent- husband to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to their minor child in addition to the amount awarded in the DV Act proceedings.
3.8. Aggrieved by the order dated 29th July 2021, the appellant- wife filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.950/2021 before the High Court. The respondent-husband filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.813/2021 against the same order. The respondent-husband also filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.2009/2022 against the order of the Family Court dated 15th October 2022. All these petitions were tagged and heard together by the High Court.
3.9. The High Court, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appellant-wife’s S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.950/2021.The respondent-husband’s Criminal Revision Petition No.2009/2022 was allowed and the order dated 15th October 2022 by the Family Court was set aside and resultantly the appellant-wife’s application under Section 125 CrPC was dismissed. Further, the respondent- husband’s Criminal Revision Petition No.813/2021 was partially allowed and order of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under Section 22 of the DV Act was set aside, however, the remaining prayers were dismissed. 3.10. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant-wife preferred SLP(Crl) No.6685/2024 and the respondent- husband preferred SLP(Crl) No.14187/2023.
4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
5. This Court, vide order dated 19th March 2025, dismissed the respondent-husband’s SLP(Crl) No.14187/2023.
6. This Court passed several orders directing the respondent- husband to clear the outstanding maintenance arrears due to the appellant-wife and their minor child. In this regard, the respondent-husband has submitted bank drafts before this Court, which has been recorded in our previous orders.
7. This Court passed an order dated 29th July 2025, which is as follows:
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
